"Read all about it"

Posts Tagged ‘Scott DeJarlais’

Insure TN is Obamacare, period!

In Uncategorized on February 3, 2015 at 8:11 AM

Insure Tn is  Obamacare, period!

0802 am

Dress it up anyway you want!

Call it whatever you want!

Lie and deceive your constituency all you want.

Insure TN is Obamacare.

Congressman Scott Dejarlais, TN 4th District had this to say about Insure TN recently. He is a Doctor in the state of Tennessee and I would call him an expert on the subject.

“Governor Haslam’s Insure Tennessee proposal accepts federal funds in exchange for adopting Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.”

” And while both the governor’s office and the Tennessean editorial board would like to claim Insure Tennessee is not Obamacare, that is simply not true.”

“Think about it: without Obamacare there would be no funding source for Insure Tennessee.” “The two programs are inextricably intertwined.”

“The governor’s proposal relies on the federal government to provide funding through the Affordable Care Act for 100 percent of the program until 2020, when Tennessee will be required to pay for 10 percent.”

“To complicate matters further, our debt is not the only threat to the future of this funding. ”

“My conservative colleagues in Congress are desperately working to abolish the Affordable Care Act – the very program the governor is relying on to subsidize INSURE TENNESSEE.”

“This sets up a situation where if Obamacare is repealed it will essentially be putting our state’s finances in jeopardy.”

“The governor is quick to say INSURE TENNESSEE is merely a pilot program and after two years HHS has assured his administration Tennessee will be able to end the program if we find it is not right for our state.”

“First, HHS is not an agency we should put much faith in as was seen in their complete mishandling of Obamacare’s rollout.”

“Second, it is extremely difficult to name a single government program that once established was eventually repealed.”

“The general rule is that once government establishes a program, it is usually here to stay.” he concluded in a recent interview. (Source below)

Haslam, Kevin Brooks and others have repeatedly said Insure TN is not Obamacare!  

This is a lie!

In an interview Q and A with the Cleveland Daily Banner recently State Representative 24 District Kevin Brooks talked about Insure Tn, defending claims by the Koch Brothers and AFP that he has betrayed Tennesseans by now supporting Obamacare in our state, a claim he denies.

His statements below sure sound like he is sold on Insure Tn, ie, Obamacare. But a vote occurs today and we will see.

Brooks says “I would not be surprised if this is one of at least two special sessions — one to turn the switch on and another to see if we want to continue or flip the switch off,” Brooks said. “That’s why I can say this is not Obamacare. Yes, there’s care, but it’s an attempt to ensure that Tennesseans have a healthy future and it won’t be costly.”

He went on to deceptively say ““This plan is Tennessee-unique and Tennessee-specific. It is not Obamacare,” Brooks said. “You cannot call it Obamacare; it is a health care plan to help these 200,000 Tennesseans that currently do not have health insurance. It is not going to cost Tennesseans any of their state tax dollars.” 

Brooks went on to say support has been overwhelming for him and is taking the AFP/Koch Brothers  attacks on him as personal, like a David and Goliath epic biblical struggle. 

I can assure you this is strictly political. A personal attack makes no sense. What benefit would it be to the Koch Brothers for this to be personal? He voted he did not want Obamacare in the state a few months ago and now it appears he does want Obamacare in the state. This isn’t personal, it’s political. This is strictly a discussion of your voting record.

I predict Brooks will probably go with Haslam and vote for the measure and the deceptive delays and avoidances will be just that.

What does the 24th District Tn State Representative expect will happen to his constituency when and if it passes and then “we” decide we do not “like” it? 

Those 200,000 plus you insured through Obamacare gets dropped and are returned to their previous uninsured status. This will leave veterans, disabled, elderly and poor people without insurance again. Wanna talk about “injury?” Giving, then taking away is pretty harmful to a group of constituents if you ask me. Then let’s not even discuss what it will cost those constituents in the form of higher taxes or what it could do to our budget.

Why not take our state back and find a workable situation to provide healthcare without a 1.4 billion price tag per year? Why not give them some longevity with their care? How about putting a think tank together and come up with solutions outside of Obamacare and the federal government?

To continue to say this is not Obamacare is irresponsible and puts  hundreds of thousands of Tennesseans at a disadvantage.

Attorney General Herbert Slattery was recently asked to give his opinion of the Haslam/Obama Insure plan. I understand Mr Slattery to be a friend and ex co-worker of Bill Haslam. He had this to say about Insure Tn, although, I doubt he knew he was not helping Haslams argument for Insure Tn. With that said, I doubt you will hear Haslam or Brooks reciting this opinion recently provided by Slattery.

In his opinion, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery says “the state can expand health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act and eventually revoke that coverage if it follows correct procedures.”

“Tennessee may expand its Medicaid program through the Affordable Care Act — also known as OBAMACARE — and discontinue that program in the future.”

He continues on page 5, paragraph 3, Slattery confirmed, although Haslam/Brooks has been denying:  Medicaid expansion as that proposed in Insure TN is, in fact — Obamacare.  

“The authority to create Insure TN is authorized and paid for by the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and is administered under the rules as laid down by the ACA”(Obamacare).

“All states looking to expand their Medicaid coverage in any way using funds made available by the Affordable Care Act must submit a proposal to federal health officials”

“The opinion clearly notes the plan expands coverage through the Affordable Care Act….”the state can expand health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act and eventually revoke that coverage if it follows correct procedures.”

This AG opinion sheds no doubt that this plan expands coverage through the Affordable Care Act, ie, Obamacare.


Let’s pretend a Doctor who happens to be a Congressman in the 4th District and  true conservative is lying when he says Insure Tn is Obamacare.

Let’s also pretend that AG Slattery who also happens to be a friend and ex coworker of Haslams is also wrong.  We e are left with few options but to look at the plan and see it’s reliance upon Obamacare for it’s existence.

Remember, even Haslam or Brooks doesnt fully know what is in the plan but lets look at what we do know.

 Is this beginning to sound familiar? Let’s vote on it then we read it? Can we channel a little Pelosi anyone?

1) It encourages enrollment of able bodied, childless healthy young people that can sustain health and to focus on preventative health. Basically to consume little healthcare and to pay for those that are sick, just like Obamacare.

2) The Governor cannot unilaterally say Insure Tn can happen, he must have the legislatures approval.

3) “Haslam touts his “verbal agreement” with the Obama administration as a “market-based Tennessee solution”

4) The plan details are not easily accessible.

5) The majority would consume healthcare as a regular Tn Care patient but many could receive federal subsidies to offset employee sponsored healthcare coverage, just like Obamacare.

6) individuals below the poverty line would pay no premium and would pay a nominal co pay for prescription drugs. Sounding familiar?

7) Those above the poverty line would pay nominal co pays. A 20-25 dollar suggestion premium with no teeth or penalty if you don’t pay. Sound like socialism?

8)  Haslam offers a benefit package for those in good health just like managed care organizations have done for years and yes like Obamacare. The real challenge do those at the poverty level have the motivation or means to practice “healthy practices” or do they as witnessed continue to consume non frugally because it’s basically “free healthcare”, like Obamacare?

9) It is subject to the same cost sharing limits as traditional Medicaid, utilizes the same existing Medicaid system to deliver the same services and benefits as Medicaid.

10) The plan would operate under a Medicaid waiver, require an amended state Medicaid plan to implement and would be funded through the Medicaid plan, just like Obama intended from the beginning.

11) Is 100 percent funded through the federal government via the ACA, Obamacare till 2020. What if Obamacare is rescinded, I don’t wanna discuss those ramifications and cost to the state. This is a 100 percent cost to you the TN taxpayer. 

Remember Medicaid expansion in the early 1990s resulted in 300 percent debt above expected costs and enrollment shoving the state into near bankruptcy, a failing credit rating, a near state income tax and consumption of nearly 40 percent of the states total budget? 

The trouble with “free healthcare” under a state plan via Obamacare is exactly that, it’s free!

If you throw out a free state program via the federal government to those who unfortunately have very little, it will be ravenously and uncontrollably consumed. Consumed much like a wild animal being thrown a steak.

Costs will sore, few will restrain. At this point we may very well pull coverage from those who truly need it because we have a plan that does not reward low consumption, but encourages consumption. 

The corporations involved only make money when resources are consumed and believe me this will be encouraged. There is no incentive not to consume or penalty for doing so. The free fall begins!

The recipients of free healthcare see this as an entitlement and under these conditions cost control will not happen nor will over consumption be squelched. Costs will inevitably be beyond state budget restraints.

This formula being devised by Haslam and with the action oriented support of State Representative Kevin Brooks is a recipe for disaster and begs one to ask why would you want Obamacare in TN when just a few months ago you didn’t want it? My guess is follow the money, it may make all this very clear.

Regardless if you believe this blog and it’s culmination of facts, whether you believe Obama, Haslam or Brooks, INSURE TN, ie, OBAMACARE is bad for Tennessee.


The opposite is being echoed by Haslam and Brooks!

Sources of info: 

I want to thank Forbes, the Cleveland Daily Banner, The Tennessean, all web solutions, Congressman Dejarlais, Rocky Top Politics and all others for their excellent coverage of this subject and the most excellent resource for my talking points. Please support these media outlets and visit their sites frequently. 



AG Slattery opinion “it is Obamacare”


Dear Senator Tracy, voting NO against status quo is a good thing in 4th District

In Uncategorized on February 19, 2014 at 6:42 AM

Dear Senator Tracy, voting NO against status quo is a good thing in 4th District

0634 am

Tn State Senator Jim Tracy was recently quoted belittling Congressman Scott Dejarais’ voting record  saying “As I’m traveling around 16 counties in the 4th District, people are tired of somebody just voting ‘NO’ all the time.” 

Hello? McFly? Mr Tracy? Are you sleeping under a rock? We want someone voting NO in DC. Geesh!

In today’s world of liberal progressives, Republican elitists and RINOs all sounding alike it is truly refreshing to see someone vote against the grain and cast a NO vote on occasion. We dont want a political puppet parroting Obamas every move.

Congressman Dejarlais has quite a respectable, conservative reputation for being a man among a bunch of liberal progressive boys in DC.

He frequently votes no on several mainstream items such as the last budget bill that severely cut veterans benefits, improved illegal immigrant benefits and took away some of our second amendment freedoms.

He also voted NO to the Monsanto Protection Act provision that called for unlabeling GMO, Genetically Modified Organisms. 

Perhaps he was referring to the budget cuts or voting NO to fund Obamacare. 

He voted NO because he ignored Nancy Pelosi types and read the bill before voting. This creates an environment for a NO vote, Mr Tracy.

What YES votes would Mr Tracy vote for if he doesnt like NO votes? The ones mentioned above? I’m afraid we know this answer. Why would anyone in the 4th District vote YES to anything on Obama, Reid or Pelosi’s liberal agenda? 

Does Tracy really think attacking an incumbent candidate that votes NO when appropriate, against Obamas liberal left agenda, would really score him points or votes in this case, in the 4th?

State Senator Tracy, take a seat buddy! There is a real man at the congressional wheel in DC. You are way out of touch with the 4th if you think  NO is a bad thing. Bow out of this race please, its embarrassing. There are plenty of YES men in Washington, D.C. already!

We like his NO votes and are sending Dejarlais back to DC. 

From the office of Congressman Dejarlais:

Dear Bradley County News,

In a recent interview with the Murfreesboro Post my opponent in this race stated, “As I’m traveling around 16 counties in the 4th District, people are tired of somebody just voting ‘no’ all the time.” 

This is not the first time state Senator Jim Tracy has made this statement attacking my voting record. 

But that begs the question, what exactly would a Congressman Jim Tracy support?

Perhaps he disagrees with my several ‘no’ votes against any attempt to raise our nation’s debt limit? Perhaps he would have voted for the Ryan-Murray budget deal that imposed unconscionable cuts on our military retirees? Or maybe the senator would have cast a ‘yes’ vote for all of the government funding bills that locked in wasteful Washington spending and funded ObamaCare?

It is no secret that I say ‘no’ quite a bit in Washington. But what can I support that President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid would also agree with? We hold totally different views for the future of this country.

And it is not just the White House and the Senate I have had to oppose. I have stood up against my own party when I felt they were abandoning the conservative principles we hold here in Tennessee’s Fourth District.

When I ran for Congress I promised I would be a conservative voice in Washington.I believe I have kept that promise. In fact, National Journal listed my voting record as the fourth most conservative in the House of Representatives and Congressional Quarterly ranked me as one of the top five Republican Members of Congress who consistently opposes President Obama’s agenda.

Now it is true that putting principle before politics does not come without a cost. I do not have many friends among the deep-pocketed K Street lobbyists. However I do sleep easy at night knowing my vote is not for sale. 

I hope the media will ask my opponent which one of my votes he disagrees with or even what he would do differently in Congress. Voters deserve an answer.

I am proud of my voting record because despite what state Senator Tracy might claim, I know that is exactly what the people I work for want: saying no to the Washington status quo.
Dr. Scott DesJarlais
U.S. Representative, TN-04

Ryan and Murray sacrifice 2nd Amendment for bipartisan budget deal

In Uncategorized on December 15, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Ryan and Murray sacrifice 2nd Amendment for bipartisan budget deal


This week Representative Paul Ryan reached across the aisle and essentially placed the 2nd Amendment protection in jeopardy and left it open for further attacks.

Many are calling this latest move by Ryan and the leftist Senator Patty Murray the “Bipartisan Budget Act” to avoid another government shut down. Those in the know are calling it a carve out of our 2nd Amendment Rights, that should have remained intact.

Besides kicking the can down the road another two years with no real long term spending cuts, our stated 2nd Amendment Rights are left vulnerable.

Ryan assisting Murray effectively put into place a series of actions that are sure to pave the way for you to turn in your guns and surrender our sovereignty to an international power called the United Nations via the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Ben Marquis with the Examiner explains the bipartisan budget bill passed this week  “Rep. Ryan willingly sacrificed a number of Deficit Neutral Reserve Funds. These Deficit Neutral Reserve Funds are basically principled stands for public consumption that are added into budget deals and Concurrent Resolutions, or CR’s. They hold no actual funds, rather they serve as placeholders for future legislation, and give said legislation something of a jumpstart in the procedural process, provided this future legislation does not add significantly to the deficit, i.e. is “paid for” by tax increases or expense cutting. In the temporary CR that was passed in mid-October to end the government shutdown, there were 84 such Reserve Funds staking out principles, ideals and future plans. The budget deal worked out between Ryan and Murray trimmed that number down to 58 Reserve Funds in Subtitle B, Section 114, Parts (c) and (d).”

The Examiner continues “Two of the Deficit Neutral Reserve Funds that were cancelled in the deal dealt with the 2nd Amendment, and their cancellation could place our gun rights at risk. Located in House Con Res 25, Title III, Section 382 established a Deficit Neutral Reserve Fund to ensure that the United States will not negotiate or support treaties that violate American’s 2nd Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States. Section 384 established a Deficit Neutral Reserve Fund to uphold 2nd Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Both of these principled stands that explicitly protect our natural right to keep and bear arms from foreign interference were sacrificed for the sake of a temporary budget deal. The door has been opened for the Obama administration or some of his agencies to begin implementation of aspects of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, with a false claim that nothing directly prohibits them from doing so.”

The UN Small Arms Treaty narrowly failed a June 3rd, 2013 vote but many are expecting it to pass the next time it is up for a vote and it will be easier with these provisions carved out!

Many say the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing and has no teeth. Of course this is based on conjecture and not fact. If anyone reads this treaty, they will quickly find out that registering every firearm, linking it to every maker, retail store and consumer is very much a part of the UN Small Arms Treaty. This is the first step to allow this to happen.

Some are saying the supremacy clause of the Constitution, located in Article 6, Section 2 trumps all treaties and should protect us. In a perfect world this would be the case, but we have a president and an administration that does not honor the Constitution.

The assault on our 2nd Amendment Rights are deliberate and intentional, we must remain aware and cognizant to know that those in elected leadership positions do not always represent our best interests.

If our 2nd Amendment Rights are gone and they are taken away we lose any ability to defend ourselves from an encroaching tyrannical government that needs you to be unarmed to completely control you.

For now, we must call out the elected leaders that voted for this bill and let them know we are none too satisfied with this latest move

My first call out is to TN 3rd District Congressman Chuck Fleischmann who voted for this bill, supporting Ryan and Murray, this shredding our 2nd Amendment. 

I want to give a shout out to TN 4th District Congressman Scott DeJarlais for his no vote! Mr DeJarlais consistently votes with his constituency and has shown great judgement with his votes.
You know what to do!

A complete list of yays and nays of our US Congressmen that voted for the Bipartisan Budget Bill.

Source of information and source quoted in above article! Please visit this site. It has a host of informational article worth consuming.
UN Small Arms Treaty

Call at high noon: Leave our guns alone

In Uncategorized on December 27, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Que in old Western music here! You know the one with the whistling noise, the rattlesnake slithering by and the desert debris floating across the earth with a coyote howling in the night at a full moon.

Now transport your self to 2012 and imagine that a band of no gooders just rode into your town, the government on horseback, if you can imagine, Obama in a black cowboy hat riding a black stallion with his posse Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. A cigarette neatly tucked into Barrack Husseins Obamas mouth and from the smoke he whispers in a breathy Clint Eastwood style…….I’m here……….to take………your guns!!!!

Quick glances around the scene, music intensifies. One person afar off in the distance is seen running in the alleyway and darting into the sherrifs office. “Sherrif, there is a badman on horseback, just rode up, saying he’s gonna take our guns!”

Sherrif rises from his chair in the corner, pats his revolver strapped snuggly to his side and he pokes back “not today he ain’t!” “Where’s the varmint?”

You get the setting! Now time for you to act!

Across the nation, and in every city, coordinated by many within the local, state and national Tea Party Patriots are coordinating a call every day for 7 days to call the US Capitol Switchboard at “high noon” to tell out representatives to leave our guns alone. In my immediate area and state that would be Congressmen Scott DeJarlais and Chuck Fleischmann and Senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander and of course Governor Bill Haslam.

Wherever you are at today and for the next 7 working days, please help us make a call at high noon everyday till the first of the year. We need to make a strong statement that our guns are not negotiable. This ploy doesn’t work unless you call and in great numbers.

Call today and let’s crash the switchboards! You may have to call several times but hey, it’s your guns that are being threatened, our only protection against a tyrannical government. Call today, call here in a few minutes, call for the next 7 days at high noon.

Come on America! Get busy!

If you want to save our 2nd Amendment call 202-224-3121! It’s the US Capitol Switchboard! Then call your representatives and tell them hands off your freedom and hands off your guns!! Do this today (Dec 27) at high noon! Then keep it up each day at noon times 7 days or as long as you want to.

This message sent to me by Lynn Moss, a Tennessee State Coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots via Mark Hager of the NC TPPs. Thanks guys for getting this started!

Congressman Dejarlais moves on with campaign, Stewart and Dems looking desperate

In Uncategorized on October 30, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Have you ever seen your grandma naked? Ever witnessed a baby seal get clubbed? Have you ever seen a circumcision? Ever chomp down on aluminum foil and it embeds inside a cavity? Striking some emotion?

That feeling right there. The one that just coarsed up your neck into your chest making your cheeks flush and your heart pump harder and faster. That anger or embarrassment or both. Do you feel it?

Ok, now say this sentence,”The Eric Stewart campaign strategy and behavior lately!” Say it, Im painting a visual, go along with me. “The Eric Stewart campaign strategy and behavior lately!”

Dont you automatically gravitate to envisioning grandmas saggy hoohas, a seal lying quietly on ice, a very sensitive piece of anatomy being wacked off with reckless abandonment and jumping up and down in pain from foil jammed into a bad tooth.

That feeling, there it is! You got it now. That’s exactly how I feel as I witness the witch hunt by Eric Stewart, that some are calling his Congressional race.

A lot of embarrassment, anger, and pain all wrapped up in one thought. What is this guy up to? Does he want to to discuss the issues or sling mud from a previous marriage with news that is at best a decade or more old and is now seeing a re-emergence in it’s second Congressional race. Quit beating a dead horse Mr Stewart! It’s an old tactic that needs to be put to rest. The 4th district deserves that much. Your recent negative behavior can only be viewed as juvenile at best.

I have heard nothing of substance from Stewarts camp, just bitchin and griping about an affair from two ladies that haven’t been in the 4th district Congressmans life for over a decade.

How do you feel about the issues Mr Sewart? Your fake president comes from your party. Why are you not investigating him? There is plenty to do there. You could spend all day inside that den of sin Mr Stewart. That venture could give you enough fodder for a lifetime.

Perfection Mr Stewart? You ain’t going to find it on this earth. Gauranteed! Skeletons? Perhaps if I spent a moment inside your closet what bones may I find. The fact is we all have bones. Granted some more than others but none the less they are in everyone’s closet.

There is much talk recently about “looking presidential.” Looking like you can lead a country. Where is that quality from you?

The liberal media is giving you plenty of print and the Dems are asking for DeJarlais resignation, the only positive in this debacle is you are showing your self unworthy of representing the 4th Congressional district of Tennessee. It make you look desperate and desperate people often take desperate measures that makes them look even more inept and unfit to lead.

The 4 th District is getting battle fatigue from all the negative campaigning. Wanna say something? Wanna get some votes? Talk about the issues and what you can do if you were elected. I challenge you to toss out the garbage and look more Congressional and less desperate.

Let compare Stewarts record to some key Dejarlais votes. Remember this is scientific and holds much truth.

Stewarts record in Congress.
Bitch, bitch, bitch and complain.
Whine some more.

Key votes by Scott DeJarlais

To audit the Federal Reserve system

To Require a Full Audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve Banks by the Comptroller General of the United States Before the End of 2012, and for Other Purposes

To Repeal the Affordable Care Act

To Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Health Care-Related Provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 2010

Civil Contempt Charge Against Attorney General

Authorizing the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to Initiate or Intervene in Judicial Proceedings to Enforce Certain Subpoenas

Contempt Finding Against Attorney General

To hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, for withholding documents requested as part of a congressional investigation into a botched gun-running operation.

House GOP Budget Plan

To approve the $3.5 trillion budget plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) for fiscal year 2013.


Package intended to make it easier for small businesses to launch initial public offerings, solicit new investors and eventually hire workers.

Extension of the payroll tax holiday and unemployment insurance benefits

Bill to extend through the end of 2012 the payroll tax holiday and unemployment insurance benefits.

Reject the Senate payroll tax bill
To reject a Senate bill that would extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits for two months.

Payroll tax cut

To extend a one-year break in the payroll tax and accelerate the construction of an oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast.


Balanced Budget Amendment

Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Continuing resolution

To approve a stopgap spending measure to fund the government through Nov. 18.

Final debt deal

A bill to cut the federal debt by at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years.

Boehner debt-reduction bill

To raise the debt ceiling, make budget deficit reductions, and require a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

GOP 2012 Budget Plan

Establishing the Budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2012 and Setting Forth Appropriate Budgetary Levels for Fiscal Years 2013 Through 2021

Final vote on 2011 budget

Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

Short-term budget deal
Stopgap spending bill to keep the government running for a week.

To stop federal funding of National Public Radio

To Prohibit Federal Funding of National Public Radio and the Use of Federal Funds to Acquire Radio Content

Two-week budget bill

A stopgap measure that would keep the federal government funded through March 18 and cut $4 billion in spending by targeting programs that President Obama has already marked for elimination.

A 90-day extension of Patriot Act provisions

Ok, ok, ok already! On the Patriot act we dont agree. Never said he was perfect, just forgiven!

Extends three provisions of the Patriot Act until May 27, 2011, a compromise reached by congressional leaders to give lawmakers more time to consider re-authorizing them for a longer period of time.

Extend three provisions of the Patriot Act

Extends three key provisions of the counterterrorism surveillance law until Dec. 8, 2011. One of the provisions authorizes the FBI to continue using roving wiretaps on surveillance targets; the second allows the government to access “any tangible items,” such as library records, in the course of surveillance; and the third is a “lone wolf” provision that allows for the surveillance of targets who are not connected to an identified terrorist groups

Extend provisions of Patriot Act (needed 2/3 to pass)

Extend expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until Dec. 8, 2011.

Repeal health-care overhaul

A vote to repeal the health-care overhaul signed into law by President Obama.

Cut House salaries and expenses

The resolution will cut the budgets of House committee and the 435 legislative offices by five percent. The House Appropriations Committee will get a nine-percent cut, which was requested by Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.)

Election of the Speaker

Ok, again I pose the question Mr Stewart what have you done lately to be more congressional acting? Clean up all that garbage you are slinging and get to running for office.

Being the Dems little whipping boy aint working to good for you!

It should be clear who you should be pulling the lever for.

Nuff said!!!

Death panels exist and are essential to the success of OBAMACARE

In Healthcare on July 5, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Death Panels do exist and will exist as long as Obamacare is allowed to exist! It is almost comical at the amount of people who are lining up behind Obama and shouting that death panels do not exist. The “number 1 lie of all time” I read in one article recently. Of course, you know this is a tactic to get you to believe them.

They, whomever they are, do not want you to grasp the fact that our own federal government has the capability to ration care, make life or death decisions based on whether it is finically responsible. Surely this would surely fire up the constituency and lead to millions that would stand at the steps of the US Capitol and demand changes to the plan or at the very least repeal it! Right?

Easily dismissing something as huge as our government enforcing a healthcare bill that puts American lives in jeopardy is the easy way out. Its an inner protection mechanism that makes us sleep better at night. Sort of like if I just believe that monster under my bed is not there, then it must not be there. I simply ask of you that if you are going to be so quick to judgement and so bold to dispel a fact at least have the cahunas to provide substantiating proof of why you are denying it. Far more often than not people will roadblock an idea based soley on the fact the person shouting the loudest believes only that there is “no way that can be true” instead of researching themselves and coming up with an informed conclusion. In this setting, simply going with your gut is not the end all tell all.

I have personally taken the time here in this blog to provide information that I knew was true because I have read alot of the plans, have watched the votes and have researched the data. The death panels, use another name if that makes you feel more comfortable, but in some form or another they do and will exist just as they have in some form or another for years. Now that mandatory healthcare is a priority in this country and the president has given this panel of 15 bureaucrats unlimited powers, we will see rationing and death panels as we have never seen them.

Death panel or allocation specialists have been buried in and out of 1000s of pages and in different proposals for several years. People are in your healthcare facilities right now evaluating who need optimization of a payment or who needs to not have that procedure that may prolong life. Death panels are in every social medicine scheme and are even in presidential hopeful Romneys state health care plan in his home state. Some have failed and some entered the plan in a fractured state but were submitted regardless. Several amendments and proposals have made it in or have been removed by legislation because of public outcry and demand for change. They are essential to the bottom line of OBAMACARE and will eventually be a reality by whatever name you choose to place on it!

As a healthcare worker I am intimately involved in day to day rationing and as a lead plaintiff in the Obamacare Class Action Lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of Obamacare focusing on the Commerce Clause, particularly the case of Wickard v Filburn I feel an obligation to be versed on the subject and make conclusions based on fact.

With nearly 30 years of healthcare experience under my belt and a direct observation of the inner workings of a healthcare machine while it is running, I as many others see this upcoming dilemma very clearly and first hand. The many changes I have seen over the years both good and bad does not surprise me. The bottom line healthcare is a business and for a business to survive the healthcare industry must make money. Making money means practicing within certain guidelines, withholding or redirecting care to the most cost efficient form of delivery and maximizing profit regardless of who may or may not get the needed services to prolong or shorten their lives.

Many want the appearance that it is all about the care and the quality of that care, but really it is about the money. Every person that presents to the churning machine and gets inside with a qualifying illness is facing the brutal honest truth and that is we as healthcare professionals have one goal, to get you in and out with as much left over profit as possible. During your visit you will observe a fragile balancing game between CEOs and providers of that care each battling over their vantage points of quality Vs quantity. The end game still is we must make money and to make money we must conserve or ration as much care a possible without harm to the patient in the least costly manner. The patient is mostly unaware of this wrangling behind the scenes but the almighty dollar and the bureaucrats behind the scenes are lurking and pushing providers with “friendly” visits to their lounges and in dimly lit hallways are more than willing to discuss the plan to get the patient out on the other side with as much economic viability as possible when care is completed.

We have always in healthcare had some type of restrictions on how much and what kind of care is delivered and the cost of providing that service. It is no secret that Doctors are perhaps not ordering a test because they know that the hospital wll not get paid for that service or will God forbid plunge the care facility into a negative balance while forcing the provider to provide an alternate therapy, one that is less costly to the care facility, especially if the patient is indigent or with no insurance. In America, we are blessed with technology advances that may prolong our lives but I am afraid that with OBAMACARE that technology may not reach us because te likes if death panels will redirect less costly procedures or tests in another direction because of the associated cost. Do I believe many will die because of the decisions of a bureaucrat in DC pulling the strings of our healthcare system? You bet they will and in great numbers!

Fear of litigation or a genuine compassion usually weighs heavy in the minds of some care givers and they will order the expensive test anyway resulting in a slap on the wrist by some cost driven administrator only looking at his bottom line when a caregiver dares step outside the decision making grid.

With the advent of Managed Care in the last few years we have seen even greater changes and have seen people that just a few years ago may have received the better more diagnostic test to effectively and efficiently render an accurate diagnosis, now being shifted to less costly, less invasive procedures.

So when I hear that a government panel will now be making decisions on your care and the result of that care it does not surprise me one bit. We have been doing it in some form for years. A healthcare facility must make money to survive period! It is a huge multi trillion dollar industry. They have to and must make money, so why does it surprise you when you hear that our government that has decided to get into the healthcare business must ration your care or at the end of your life direct you toward a less costly end and use a death panel to do it?

Granny’s has had end of life prolongation discussions at the foot of her bed for years by nurses, care providers, case managers, utilization review specialist and Physicians concerned about moving forward cautiously would be in the best interest of the hospital, family and the providers.

Many factors weigh in the decision making process but essentially it boils down to does granny go to heaven today or does she go a week from now using more resources? Does granny eat up valuable resources that could be used on someone else half her age in another setting? If granny is laying there and she has exhausted many resources from a stingy Medicare repayment program the decision in most cases ends with the family deciding to let go. This is the desired ending. The dilemma occurs when family or provider wants to apply the full court press and hopefully see granny healthy once again. This causes many “alerts” to go off at many levels and causes concern for vested parties that are seeing her profitability melt away and granny laying there as a liability. This is where the patient gets alot of attention and many begin the process of trying to minimize a disastrous extended stay with no future earning potential. Granny is now a number. She is marked as an outlier with an exhausted or bursting at the seams DRG payment structure that will fall short of what is needed to make granny a profitable entity. It is a necessary evil, the bottom line has to matter or you don’t float. When the eventual money is plopped down on granny, the care facility must make a decision at this time to either hasten grannies departure or eat the cost hoping for only a big tax incentive at years end. This is a tough business and when the thought of someone rationing care at the end of a persons life seems unspeakable but It is happening daily even as I speak. Ask any provider this is probably one of the toughest times in their careers. I know it is in mine. I gave gone home and had many sleepless nights as this life and death battle unfolded in front of me during a long shift.

The struggle has been going on for a long time, the struggle with me is to see it done so casually by our federal government that should not be laying a hand on us period let alone making life and death decisions based on whether my illness provides you a profit! The result is a nice clean job with everyone happy and unaware that the government, provider or insurance company has profited off of your misfortune. No ones hands are dirty and the deed is done, everyone is satisfied and granny is better off and unaware of the balancing act that surrounds her. Does it now surprise me that the government has decided to apply these same methods to their own mandate? Not at all!

In light of what is happening already, why is it such a big shocker that Obama has placed it in his healthcare plan moving forward. Exactly, now the government is doing it to us directly and taking all the delicate caring intricacies that are visible at the beside and replacing it with a panel of 15 getting paid 165,000 dollars a year to make end of life decisions. Regardless of what the end product of death panels makes it past our legislators, remember there will always be those people somewhere in the shadows of a dying patient making those crucial decisions that will affect their bottom line, it is just harder for me to swallow when it is the federal governments presence at the bedside of a dying patient.

It seems the word death panel makes us uneasy, let’s use the term rationed care or granny’s had enough care or why are we still beating a dead horse care! I like that one the best!

Think about it people. The way OBAMA and our government to fully make this massive multi trillion dollar plan work there has to be some major corners cut somewhere. With no lifetime caps on care, exclusions for pre-existing illnesses, 32 million new people in the system that were previously uninsured, perhaps 28 million new immigrants, millions of people with the vision of sugar plums in their heads and saying “I have free insurance now, let’s go to the hospital” there will little money if any left over at the end of the day.

The end conclusion will be someone is going to have to ration care and make some tough decisions and it want be the patient, their family or the provider. It will be an independent board of 15 government appointees and paid bureaucrats with more power with decision making capabilities than Congress. Yes, we are definitely talking about a “death panel or as you prefer a stop beating a dead horse panel to control the massive influx of needed care and that leads me to the next point, the death panel that supposedly doesn’t exist!

I am specifically talking about IPAB! (Note source of info for this definition) The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is a fifteen-member United States Government agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (OBAMACARE) which has the explicit task of achieving specified savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.[1] Under previous and current law, changes to Medicare payment rates and program rules are recommended by MedPAC but require an act of Congress to take effect. The new system grants IPAB the authority to make changes to the Medicare program with the Congress being given the power to overrule the agency’s decisions through supermajority vote.

IPAB was created with its ostensible purpose to “control costs.” In reality, it will do nothing at all about costs. Instead, the board’s fifteen “experts” will impose old-fashioned price controls. Before Obamacare was signed into law in March of 2010, only Congress had the power to make changes to Medicare’s reimbursement rates. But PPACA, for all intents and purposes, transfers that power to this tiny cadre of presidential appointees who will have no accountability to the voters. In theory, IPAB can only propose changes to Medicare’s payment rates. In practice, however, the board’s proposals will take effect automatically unless Congress passes contrary legislation and the President signs it into law.

I know, I too wince when I say it but the “death panel seems to exist!” Rationing of care has been going on for years, the major difference now is it will be the federal government with it’s board of 15 advisors of whom will consist of businessmen and women and very few caregivers. Granny is going to have her care regulated or rationed by a “panel of business men and women” with a lot of statistics lying out in front of them complete with a matrix decision making grid plugging in past best practice measures and coming to a determination and forcing providers to make end of life decisions and withholding procedures because it makes best economic sense.

Congressman Scott Dejarlais (R) 4th District TN and local Physician said it best recently in an interview telling reporters that the IPAB panel was “designed to put a Washington bureaucrat between the patient and their doctor.”

If death panels or rationing panels do not exist then why are Congressmen taking a stance against it? Why does the proposal keep making it to every bill? Why is it always the topic of conversation and rolls so easily off the presidents lips? Because they see it as the only way to reign in spending and by rationing care this is the only way they see for OBAMACARE and our country to survive under this oppressive healthcare system.

Fortunately, for now, Congress, just a few months ago voted to stop IPAB and death panels from making it’s way into the final healthcare bill in it’s present known form. Warning to you that since this stop gap measure there is already talk of slipping this back in to the plan in the future. The government just has to make it palatable or simply hope for you not to be looking when it is made permanent. The goal is to restore death panels, that Congress just knocked down for the time being to have them active by 2013, no later than 2017. This president has shown he doesn’t need Congress or the constitution to make decisions, he only needs to speak it and it happens.

Congress repeals “death panel provision.”
March 22, 2012-

The U.S. House of Representatives today voted to repeal a portion of the Obamacare law that pro-life advocates strongly opposed because it could lead to rationing of health care for patients across the nation.

Leading pro-life groups had been asking members of Congress to approve legislation that would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which has been derisively called “death panels” by detractors.

Today, the Republican-controlled House voted for legislation to do just that on a 223-181 vote, with seven Democrats supporting the measure. The Senate is not expected to take up the measure and the vote could turn Obamacare into even greater election issue than it is currently.

“Both create government panels to dictate quality and cost containment,” Santorum explained. “Some of you may be familiar with the Independent Payment Advisory Board — which is a board separate from Congress, independent of Congress — that President Obama created to control health care costs. How? By cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals under the Medicare program. Well, Gov. Romney has a similar program called the Council on Health Quality and Costs.”

“Some people refer to these types of boards as death panels,” he added. “Why? Because they ultimately decide to ration care to those procedures and people because they don’t believe these procedures are effective in providing care, that the utilization isn’t worth the costs.”

“So, again, you have government making decisions and rationing and apportioning care based on research that shows what outcomes are dictated by the research that’s out there.”

In 2009, Politifact named “death panels,” a term thought to have been first used by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), as their “Lie of the Year.”

What then Alaska Governor Palin failed to do was make her argument against IPAB. Instead she made her argument against coordinated voluntary end of life decisions, which was in the original bill and has been softened to make you accept it. The proposed and recently turned down death panel or IPAB fight is far from over. Still stuck in the OBAMACARE health bill is even if the IPAB is repealed the President can still delegate the “death panel” chores over to Secretary of HHS Kathryn Sebelius and then she will delegate to a panel of fifteen again.

The term Death panel or whatever you call it does exist and is ready to take over in 2013. The death panel in any form will go forward. For the plan to work and to display a significant profit for the insurance companies inside the exchanges they will need some very strict oversight, which will be seen as a necessity.

Whether you call it a death panel or not, decisions will be made by a set of bureaucrats and many will die because of those decisions. Because they say it makes economical sense and provides a huge profit for all involved, even for the US Government, now the largest healthcare manager in the world, it doesn’t make it right.

Other interesting reading on IPAB!

This according to my research was not accepted in the final bill! Many spoke up and said they didn’t want the government paying Providers to counsel or approach family members with a profit incentive to discuss end of life care.

Even as you slept the powers that be are dead set on getting some type of control over your end of life decisions, they have to! Be aware of moves in the future and the next time you decide to scoff at others informing you, do a little research and see the light that is blinding you is also keeping you from seeing the truth.

SEC. 1233. VOLUNTARY ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CON6 SULTATION. 7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social Secu8 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended— 9 (1) in subsection (s)(2)— 10 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub11 paragraph (DD); 12 (B) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub13 paragraph (EE); and 14 (C) by adding at the end the following new 15 subparagraph: 16 ‘‘(FF) voluntary advance care planning con17 sultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and 18 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub19 section: 20 ‘‘Voluntary Advance Care Planning Consultation 21 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the 22 term ‘voluntary advance care planning consultation’ 23 means an optional consultation between the individual and 24 a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding ad 1 vance care planning. Such consultation may include the 2 following, as specified by the Secretary: 3 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad4 vance care planning, including a review of key ques5 tions and considerations, advance directives (includ6 ing living wills and durable powers of attorney) and 7 their uses. 8 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of the 9 role and responsibilities of a health care proxy and 10 of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports 11 available, including palliative care and hospice, and 12 benefits for such services and supports that are 13 available under this title. 14 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of phy15 sician orders regarding life sustaining treatment or 16 similar orders, in States where such orders or simi17 lar orders exist. 18 ‘‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is— 19 ‘‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection 20 (r)(1)); and 21 ‘‘(B) another health care professional (as speci22 fied by the Secretary and who has the authority 23 under State law to sign orders for life sustaining 24 treatments, such as a nurse practitioner or physician 25 assistant). 651 •HR 3962 EH 1 ‘‘(3) An individual may receive the voluntary advance 2 care planning care planning consultation provided for 3 under this subsection no more than once every 5 years 4 unless there is a significant change in the health or health5 related condition of the individual. 6 ‘‘(4) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order re7 garding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to 8 an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the 9 treatment of that individual that effectively communicates 10 the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treat11 ment, is signed and dated by a practitioner, and is in a 12 form that permits it to be followed by health care profes13 sionals across the continuum of care.’’. 14 (b) CONSTRUCTION.—The voluntary advance care 15 planning consultation described in section 1861(hhh) of 16 the Social Security Act, as added by subsection (a), shall 17 be completely optional. Nothing in this section shall— 18 (1) require an individual to complete an ad19 vance directive, an order for life sustaining treat20 ment, or other advance care planning document; 21 (2) require an individual to consent to restric22 tions on the amount, duration, or scope of medical Link: http://energycommerce.house.g…

Want to know who voted for CISPA- Roll call!

In Government on May 4, 2012 at 10:34 AM


H R 3523      RECORDED VOTE      26-Apr-2012 6:31 PM
QUESTION:  On Passage
BILL TITLE: To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes

Republicans in roman; Democrats in italics; Independents underlined

REPUBLICAN 206 28   7
DEMOCRATIC 42 140   8
TOTALS 248 168   15

—- AYES    248 —

Bass (NH)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bono Mack
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burton (IN)
Castor (FL)
Coffman (CO)
Connolly (VA)
Donnelly (IN)
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly Garamendi
Gingrey (GA)
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Hastings (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Huizenga (MI)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Larsen (WA)
Lewis (CA)
Lungren, Daniel E.
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer Noem
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Ryan (WI)
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

—- NOES    168 —

Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bishop (UT)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Carson (IN)
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Frank (MA)
Gosar Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hastings (FL)
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Murphy (CT)
Olver Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Rothman (NJ)
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott (VA)
Thompson (MS)
Van Hollen
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Wilson (FL)

—- NOT VOTING    15 —

Davis (KY)

What is it? CISPA?

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa) was recently passed in the US House of Representatives!

It is the first such bill to go to a vote since the collapse of the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) in January after global protests and a concerted campaign by internet giants such as Google, Wikipedia and Twitter.
The author of the new bill, Mike Rogers, the Republican chair of the House intelligence committee, has said it is aimed at tracking the nefarious activities of hackers, terrorists and foreign states, especially China. But its critics charge the bill will affect ordinary citizens and overturn the privacy protections they now enjoy.
Opponents fear the way it is currently drafted will open up ordinary citizens to unprecedented scrutiny. The bill uses the wording: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” a phrase that if it became law would trump all existing legislation, according to critics.
In one section, the bill defines “efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy” a network as an area that would trigger a Cispa investigation. Opponents argue something as simple as downloading a large file – a movie for example – could potentially be defined as an effort to “degrade” a network.
The bill also exempts companies from any liability for handing over private information.
“As it stands the bill allows companies to turn over private information to the government and for them to use it for any purpose that they see fit, all without a warrant,” said Michelle Richardson, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “For 40 years we have had legislation about wiretapping that protects people. This would overturn that and make a cyber exception.”
Privacy advocates are especially concerned about what they see as the overly broad language of the bill. As people increasingly use services like Skype and other internet telephony services, Twitter and Facebook to communicate, advocates fear the bill is a land grab that would give US authorities unprecedented access to private information while removing a citizen’s legal protection.



%d bloggers like this: