Archive for December, 2012

Pravda: Obama Re-Elected by ‘Illiterate Society’

Sunday, December 23rd, 2012

Pravada:  Obama’s Soviet Mistake

19.11.2012 By Xavier Lerma

(Pravada) Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.

After Obama was elected in his first term as president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake.

Also read: Pravda.Ru exclusive interview with Jean Marie Le Pen

Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

Putin said regarding the military,

“…instead of solving the problem, militarization pushes it to a deeper level. It draws away from the economy immense financial and material resources, which could have been used much more efficiently elsewhere.”

Well, any normal individual understands that as true but liberalism is a psychosis . O’bomber even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with projects like “fast and furious” and there is still no sign of ending it. He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.

Reading Putin’s speech without knowing the author, one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in America. The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative. Vladimir Putin went on to say:

“…we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses.

The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state.

There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.

Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt – are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.

During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself.”

President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don’t they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents. Obama has bailed out those businesses that voted for him and increased the debt to over 16 trillion with an ever increasing unemployment rate especially among blacks and other minorities. All the while promoting his agenda.

“We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success.”- Vladimir Putin

The red, white and blue still flies happily but only in Russia. Russia still has St George defeating the Dragon with the symbol of the cross on its’ flag. The ACLU and other atheist groups in America would never allow the US flag with such religious symbols. Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free. Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law.

Let’s give American voters the benefit of the doubt and say it was all voter fraud and not ignorance or stupidity in electing a man who does not even know what to do and refuses help from Russia when there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead we’ll say it’s true that the Communists usage of electronic voting was just a plan to manipulate the vote. Soros and his ownership of the company that counts the US votes in Spain helped put their puppet in power in the White House. According to the Huffington Post, residents in all 50 states have filed petitions to secede from the Unites States. We’ll say that these Americans are hostages to the Communists in power. How long will their government reign tyranny upon them?

Russia lost its’ civil war with the Reds and millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once “Land of the Free” remain the United Socialist States of America? Their suffering has only begun. Bye bye Miss American Pie!

Coming soon to your ObamaCare Hospital

Sunday, December 23rd, 2012

The United Kingdom NHS hospital has apologized to 38 families after a patient starved to death and it left other dying people screaming in pain.

By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent, and Josie Ensor

9:00PM GMT 22 Dec 2012

Alexandra Hospital in Redditch is writing to 38 families after a massive legal action that exposed years of bad practice, ranging from nurses taunting patients to leaving an elderly woman unwashed for 11 weeks.

In one of the worst cases, a man had starvation recorded as the cause of his death after being treated at the hospital for two months.

Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, said last night that he was “disgusted and appalled” by what the families had been through, and that the Government was acting to ensure that failings in care were detected more quickly.

Bereaved relatives had told how vulnerable patients were left to starve when trays were placed out of their reach, while others were left in soaking bedsheets.

Many of the families are to receive compensation for cases that their lawyer described as “appalling”.

Related Articles

The hospital is to admit its failings in each case in the letters.

The move will serve to intensify debate on why some nurses and doctors are treating patients without compassion, and will add weight to the warning by Mr Hunt that patients can experience “coldness, resentment, indifference” and “even contempt” in NHS hospitals.

He warned that in the worst institutions, a “normalisation of cruelty” had been fostered.

Concern over the issue is mounting, and on Friday the Prince of Wales made a direct plea to doctors and nurses to listen to their patients and to show them “human kindness”.

Writing in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, the prince said there was an urgent need to restore “a climate of care and compassion” in the health service.

The catalogue of failings uncovered by the mass legal action is one of the worst ever exposed at an NHS hospital.

It included:

• A former nurse whose son told how she died after being left unwashed for 11 weeks, and was put on medication so powerful that she could not speak;

• A 35-year-old father-of-four whose family told how he wasted away because staff did not know how to fit a feeding tube;

• A pensioner who was left screaming in pain when his ribs were broken during a botched attempt to hoist him;

• A man who could not feed himself whose daughter described how he was taunted by nurses who took away his food uneaten;

• A great-grandmother left permanently unable to walk after doctors failed to detect a hip fracture.

In total the hospital has paid out £410,000 in 38 separate cases, five to people who survived, the rest to those whose relatives died.

The largest settlement is £22,500, and most are of about £10,000 for each family for the appalling conditions endured by patients from 2002 to November 2011.

The hospital did not admit liability — but crucially, and unusually, agreed to apologise fully to the families.

Lawyers said the NHS trust had left patients facing “shocking” indignities and the most basic failings in care, and that the poor care had continued for years, despite repeated assurances by trust managers that the problems were being tackled.

Emma Jones, a lawyer from Leigh Day & Co, who represented victims and families, said: “The failings we uncovered were appalling — vulnerable patients were left starving and thirsty, with drinks left out of reach, buzzers ignored and people left to sit in their own waste by the very people meant to be caring for them.”

Some of the families who have received compensation have been fighting for a decade for an explanation over failings in care by Alexandra Hospital, which is run by Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

Others joined the group action, the second biggest the NHS has ever faced, after a report in October 2010 by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the regulator, showed that care of the elderly at the hospital had broken the law.

One of the worst cases involved an 84-year-old man from Redditch who starved to death at the hospital in 2009.

The official cause on his death certificate was “inanition” — the clinical term for starvation, as a result of being left without food or drink.

The pensioner was admitted to the hospital in June 2009 after suffering a fall. While in its care, he was prescribed a special diet as he could only manage certain foods. However, he was not fed properly and died two months later.

His relatives did not wish for him to be identified.

Later the same year, regulators warned that so many patients were left at risk of dehydration at the hospital that doctors were forced to prescribe water for patients.

The warning was contained in a report that condemned the quality of care of the elderly across the NHS after spot checks at 100 hospitals. It found “major concerns” at Alexandra Hospital and at Sandwell General Hospital in West Bromwich.

Official statistics show that death rates at Worcestershire Acute Hospitals Trust were 10 per cent higher than the national average in 2010-11, when the CQC report was published, meaning there were 239 deaths more than would be expected.

Since then, mortality has improved but the trust still has 6 per cent more deaths than would be expected.

Mr Hunt said there was “no excuse” for the way in which patients had been treated.

He said the Department of Health would be closely monitoring care at the hospital, and would take further action if needed.

“I am disgusted and appalled to read these accounts of what patients and their relatives went through,” he said. “I know that most NHS staff — including many at the Alexandra Hospital — will be shocked to hear these stories.

“I want to support them in making sure these awful experiences are not repeated.”

He said the department would be bringing in ways to measure patients’ experiences so that the public could judge the quality of hospitals.

In a statement, the trust said: “Prior to the CQC inspection and as a consequence of rigorous clinical governance within the trust, the need to improve certain aspects of patient care had been identified and active steps had been taken to rectify shortcomings.

“The trust accepted the findings of the CQC report immediately and continued to implement improvements on relevant wards to ensure that standards were raised quickly.

“The subsequent CQC inspection in September last year confirmed that the trust met every CQC standard, and the focus now is to ensure that those high standards are maintained and built upon. The trust is committed to delivering the very best care to its patients.

“The trust has accepted that certain aspects of the care afforded to some patients fell below the standard that they were entitled to expect and which this trust now provides.

“We do not consider it appropriate to comment further on the care afforded to individual patients, some of whom were treated as long ago as 2002. Claims were pursued on behalf of a group of patients as a consequence of the CQC report.

“These were dealt with swiftly, amicably and without recourse to litigation, and the trust will shortly be writing to all concerned with full and unreserved apologies.”

Colin White 73, was another pensioner who was often left without food and water, after nurses placed his tray out of reach. He was one of several people on his ward with a red tray, which indicated that he had to be helped to eat.

His daughter, Kim, said the nurse on duty would say ‘not hungry today then?’, before taking the food away, without waiting for an answer, despite the fact that he was often too confused to answer.

Mr White was prescribed a high-energy drink but it too was left out of reach. Miss White said that if it was still there when nurses did their rounds, they would throw it in the bin before marking on his chart that he had taken it.

After witnessing the treatment, his family made sure Mr White was never left alone at the hospital.

He spent his final few days in extreme pain as he was not given any morphine, she said.

“One of the last things he said was, ‘Get me out of this hellhole’,” Miss White said. “For those to be the last words of someone you love was devastating.”

We Need Death Panels–by Steve Rattner Treasury Dept Obama Administration

Tuesday, December 4th, 2012

New York Times Opinion Page September 16, 2012

Steven Rattner was a counselor to the Treasury secretary in the Obama administration.

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

But in the pantheon of toxic issues — the famous “third rails” of American politics — none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.

Most notably, President Obama’s estimable Affordable Care Act regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries. In 2009, Sarah Palin’s rant about death panels even forced elimination from the bill of a provision to offer end-of-life consultations.

Now, three years on, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, Paul D. Ryan, has offered his latest ambitious plan for addressing the Medicare problem. But like Mr. Obama’s, it holds limited promise for containing the program’s escalating costs within sensible boundaries.

The Obama and Ryan plans are not without common ground; both propose an identical formula for capping the growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary. And both dip into the same toolbox (particularly lower payments to providers) to achieve a reduction of nearly $1 trillion in Medicare expenditures over the next decade from projected levels.

That’s where the agreement ends. Mr. Ryan believes that meeting the goal over the long term requires introducing more competition into Medicare through vouchers to purchase private insurance.

But Ryan’s approach was rendered toothless when the issue’s brutal politics forced him to retreat from his initial tough plan to simply cap the growth in government spending on Medicare and stick the inevitable overage onto beneficiaries. Under his revised plan, private insurers would be required to offer the same level of benefits as traditional Medicare, meaning that any savings would have to come from unidentified efficiencies (the ever-popular “waste, fraud and abuse”).

If the cap was breached — as it almost certainly would eventually be — Mr. Ryan blithely says, “Congress would be required to intervene.” Fat chance; Congress regularly does the opposite when it rolls back caps on payments to doctors and hospitals.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama’s hopes for sustained cost containment are pinned on a to-be-determined mix of squeezing reimbursements, embracing a selection of the creative ideas that have spewed forth from health care policy wonks and scouring the globe for innovations.

To Mr. Obama’s credit, his plan has more teeth than Mr. Ryan’s; if his Independent Payment Advisory Board comes up with savings, Congress must accept either them or vote for an equivalent package. The problem is, the advisory board can’t propose reducing benefits (a k a rationing) or raising fees (another form of rationing), without which the spending target looms impossibly large.

That’s the view of the bipartisan Medicare trustees, whose 2012 report stated: “Actual future Medicare expenditures are likely to exceed the intermediate projections shown in this report, possibly by quite large amounts.”

To be sure, health care cost increases have moderated, in part because of the recession and in part because Medicare has been tightening its reimbursements. But those thumbscrews can’t be tightened forever; Medicare reimbursement rates are already well below those of private providers.

Let’s not forget that with the elderly population growing rapidly, even if cost increases for each beneficiary can be contained, Medicare would still claim a rising share of the American economy.

Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is not to be found in Mr. Ryan’s competition or Mr. Obama’s innovation, but in reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes more than a quarter of the program’s budget.

No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled — including Canada, Australia and New Zealand — have systems for rationing care.

Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment’s ability to extend life.

At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs. We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable.

Steven Rattner, a contributing opinion writer, was a counselor to the Treasury secretary in the Obama administration.

Calling Obamaism by its Rightful Name

Tuesday, December 4th, 2012

An ancient Chinese proverb tells us: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.”

By the same token, a doctor cannot cure an ailment without an accurate diagnosis. The physician needs to know exactly what he’s dealing with before he can figure out how to cure it.

So let’s not pull any punches. In spite of President Barack Obama’s lack of willingness to admit it, he is now America’s leading advocate of an economic and political philosophy that was once anathema to most Americans — socialism.

In the days of my youth, most American doctors (before they became addicted to the multibillion-dollar public trough of Medicare/Medicaid) rightfully feared an end to freedom for themselves and their patients. This fear was regularly used to denounce the threat of “socialized medicine.”

Nutty Leftist Ideas Were Once Ridiculed

Back then, the nutty leftist ideas of perennial U.S. Socialist Party candidate, Norman Thomas, were ridiculed by middle-of-the-road and conservative politicians. Wherever he may be now, Norman Thomas should be smiling. Because today, both Republicans and Democrats alike have swallowed his socialist nostrums and made them their own.

Yes indeed, in those days, when most Americans were not totally ignorant about their history and government, we were taught (in what was quaintly called civics class) that socialism was not only a dirty word — it was just one step away from communism!

That was also the view of communism’s chief theoretician, Karl Marx. Old Karl saw socialism as a sort of gateway drug, the stage that follows the welcome destruction of capitalism, all part of the inevitable transition to communism. In 1875, Marx put it this way: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Nowadays, Obama and company call that “redistribution” and “equalizing” wealth.

When he was a first-time presidential candidate in 2008, Obama let his socialist views slip in an encounter with Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, Ohio’s Joe the Plumber: “I just want to spread the wealth around,” the future president said.

That revealing lapse of the carefully scripted Obama game plan opened the then little-known candidate to charges that he advocated socialism. At the time, Obama not only denied he was a socialist (Heaven forbid!), he made jokes about it, saying that such a charge was just plain silly.

His left-wing defenders insisted that Barack Obama was never the Che Guevara in pinstripes that right-wingers alleged. But Senator John McCain summed up Obama’s record on Capitol Hill as “more liberal than a Senator who calls himself a socialist [Vermont’s Bernie Sanders].” In fact, Obama’s Senate-voting record was the most left-liberal of all the 100 senators.

The president’s record of advocacy and policies during his first term confirmed his socialistic beliefs. It began with the $15 billion auto bailout. This was the first installment of many anti-capitalist policies, avoiding the orderly route of bankruptcy and handing the auto unions everything they wanted, making government a major stockholder.

Compounding the irony and confirming bi-partisan support for socialism, then President George Bush first signed the auto plan into law – a fitting coda to the reckless government power expansion and deficit spending that marked his unprincipled legacy.

With Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of Congress, there followed trillions in big-bank and insurance-company bailouts, trillions more in so-called stimulus spending, and the center piece of Obama socialism, a federal takeover of one-fifth the nation’s economy – Obamacare.

Just last week, Obama again demanded more trillions in “stimulus” so he can play Santa Claus for his “give-me-more-from-government” supporters, especially government employees.

Throughout his first term, and repeated ad nauseum during the recent campaign, the president made “wealthy people” straw-man villains, stirring up class warfare to a degree rarely seen recently in American politics. The last example may have been the 1948 campaign of Henry Wallace, who openly advocated socialism and praised Russian communists.

So there is no need to wonder. In Obama’s Washington, socialism is the “in” philosophy.

And the standard definition of socialism is pretty clear.

Socialism is an economic theory and system of social organization that advocates government taking ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land and private property, and giving it to the community (the people) as a whole.

But every thinking person knows that “the people” cannot collectively manage such a system, so (you guessed it), the production and distribution of goods are controlled by “the government” – meaning overpaid bureaucrats, not dissimilar to the apparachiks who ran the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and the rest. Private enterprise is out. Government-imposed planning and cooperation, rather than free market competition, guides all economic activity in socialism.

So go back and consider: “Government taking ownership and control of the means of production and distribution” and “government guides all economic activity.”

Sound familiar? Government ownership and control of banks, auto companies, insurance companies, real estate and health care.

Socialism Has Been Imposed on Once-Free Americans

That’s what Obama and the U.S. Congress (both parties) have imposed on once-free Americans (and on our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren ad infinitum).

That’s the essence of those multi-trillion dollar bailouts. And there’s more to come in Obama Act II — more nationalized health care, nationalized education at all levels, increased taxes, increased inflation — inevitable and sustained economic misery and lost liberties.

I mentioned Senator Bernie Saunders who just got re-elected in the Peoples Republic of Vermont. At least he is honest in his open espousal of socialism.

Hoodwinking the American people by claiming that they do not advocate socialism is the game played by President Obama, many Democrats and too many Republicans. All these disingenuous pygmy politicians, who are mainly interested in retaining their pitiful powers, are guiding this once great country down the failed road of socialism.
I say: A plague on all your houses!

This New Year 2012 is one more chance for you and I to join in fighting government oppression and show others the way to a freer society. Make your resolution to join us in the continuing struggle for liberty.

And never has there been a more appropriate time to consider obtaining a second passport and possible expatriation.

Over the next four years, you can expect more nationalization, higher taxes and fewer liberties than the Founding Fathers of this nation ever dreamed possible.

The dark night of socialism is now an American reality and fully upon us. The Sovereign Society recommends a number of expatriation strategies as well as offshore havens for your hard-earned savings.

I urge you to consider a Plan B before it is too late.

Yours faithfully,  Bob Bauman

America following Lenin/Stalin to Socialized Medicine

Tuesday, December 4th, 2012

Dr. Lee Hieb is an orthopaedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery. She is past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a free market medical organization.More ↓Less ↑

Call a Code Blue! Medicine in America is in cardiac arrest.

If the election results are to be believed, the majority of Americans do not trust themselves and their highly trained physicians to make decisions about their health. Rather, they have relinquished total control of their medical care, including 14 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product to the same crew of incompetents who crashed the housing market, who poured billions into business failures such as Solyndra and who see food stamps as supporting a jobs-growth program.

I am a practicing physician and surgeon, with over 30 years experience in hands-on patient care. I have seen firsthand the march to socialism, and the systematic destruction of the noble profession of medicine. And, believe me, we are at the end game.

None of this is by accident. Government control of health care has nothing to do with the purported goals of improving quality, expanding access and decreasing cost – when has government ever improved these in any business? No, this is about power. After all, what is more precious than a person’s health? Politicians who seek power, therefore, see “health care” as a fast track to their goal.

The first government-run health system was introduced in the late 19th century in Germany by Kaiser Wilhelm, for totally self-serving reasons. At the time, his regime was threatened by the Social Democrats, and the Kaiser’s advisors suggested beating the leftists at their own game by giving the average German something that would make him dependent on the crown. The choice? They instituted government funding for doctors. Young physicians could supplement their income by applying to be a “panel” physician and would be paid for treating the rural poor, for giving vaccines and generally dealing with public health issues (think Medicaid).

For nearly 40 years the system worked well. Kaiser Wilhelm remained in power, and these stipends encouraged doctors to practice in underserved areas of the country.

But predictably, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the monarchy ran out of other people’s money. Between the cost of World War I, reparations and the worldwide stock market collapse, by 1930 little was left of the medical reforms except paperwork and regulations (which seem never to go away, even in hard times).

The worst result of this venture, however, was the destruction of the ethics of private practice. Physicians, instead of acting in the best interest of individual patients, became partners of the state. They were used to taking orders and filling out forms for government functionaries, so it was a very small leap for them to work under the Nazis and to become integral players in the Nazi death machine.

Across the Baltic, the Russian communist Vladimir Lenin, too, understood the role of medicine when he opined, “Medical care is the keystone in the arch of socialism.”

One of the first acts of the new Bolshevik government was to nationalize health care – again, not out of altruistic concern for the masses of Russian peasants, but to centralize control over the population and over physicians, who tended to be free thinkers and well respected by the citizens.

Historically, however, in the absence of governmental collapse (e.g. war-torn Germany or the fall of the Soviet Union), there is no nation that has ever reverted from a nationalized, government-run health service back to a free market system. Once adopted, single payer, government health care becomes the sacred cow of a nation’s legislature. They may debate funding allocations, i.e. who gets what, they may complain about shortages, wait times and cost to the state, but they never mention turning back the clock and reverting to the traditional, patient-centered, free market medicine. Once it’s over … it’s over.

In future “The Weekly Prescription” columns, we will explore the truth of government health care around the world and what we have to look forward to in the coming years. We will address steps individuals can take to protect themselves medically when the system fails to help them. We will discuss latest scientific breakthroughs in longevity and wellness. And we will discuss how medicine can be saved.

But today, we must admit to having lost a major battle. When it comes to America and socialized health care, we are no longer fighting on the beaches, the enemy is in our back yards.

Nancy Pelosi didn’t need to read the bill, because she knew the details didn’t matter. The goal of Obamacare is to take away what’s left of our medical freedom and give it to the oligarchs inside the beltway. And a majority of voting Americans agreed.

There is no better summation than that of Charlie Reese when he wrote years ago, “There’s no dishonor in being forced by a superior power into slavery, but it is an eternal disgrace to voluntarily surrender one’s liberty for a filthy bowl of oatmeal and promise of security by liars.”