Much of these emails relate to the negative aspects of Obamacare. There is a bit of economics and depopulation agenda info as well.
Obama Care is Not a Personalized Healthcare system and here’s why………
Sent: 9/27/2013 8:50 AM
I want to show you how Obamacare is designed by one of its creators to NOT Promote Longer Life and the Principle architect even admits it by saying he does not believe in Personalized Healthcare!!!! You will see more people fall through the cracks when a One size fits all system is in place!!!!
[Blog Editor: Tony Newbill wants you to focus on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel as involved in constructing Obamacare. Here is some thoughts you should know about Dr. Emmanuel:
Scheiner said that the Obama administration neglected the advice of real physicians and instead decided to let political operatives craft Obama’s signature health care law. People like Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, were the kinds of medical people that the White House consulted.
“Ezekiel is a medical oncologist, not a general physician,” said Scheiner. (Former Obama Doctor: Obamacare is a Failure; By Justin Credible; HABLEDASH; 5/14/12)
Ezekiel Emanuel is one of Obamacare’s chief architects, and he just announced in the Wall Street Journal that there is a crucial flaw in its foundation. How can anything so universally reviled and precariously designed ever enter the construction phase? (How to kill Obamacare without even trying; By Yates Walker; Daily Caller; 5/8/13 3:40 PM)
Essentially the article is about the optimism of an Eric Topol and the condemnation of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s of Personalized Medicine as something not compatible with Obamacare.]
Is personalized medicine a myth?
The intersection of technology, science, medicine and design has led to an explosion of apps for monitoring blood pressure, glucose levels and heart rate and measuring how well you sleep, whether you’re stressed or relaxed and whether you’re eating healthy. We have been able to harness the existing digital infrastructure to get personalized health data we did not have access to before.
Combine wireless sensors with the study of genes, or genomics, imaging and a proliferation of health-focused social networks, and you have a convergence capable of bringing about the “creative destruction” of medicine.
That’s the term Topol uses in his 2012 book, “The Creative Destruction of Medicine: How the Digital Revolution Will Create Better Health Care,” to refer to the transformation that accompanies radical innovation.
This disruption, said Topol, will be characterized by the personalization of drugs, devices, screening tests and …
But not everyone agrees with Topol.
“Personalized medicine is a myth. It’s hyperbolic,” argued Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, vice provost for global initiatives and chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
According to Emanuel, tailoring medical treatments to individual characteristics of each patient is both overly optimistic and cost-prohibitive. He likened it to buying a custom-made suit versus one off the rack.
In addition to what he felt would be explosive costs, Emanuel also argued against personalized medicine by observing that behavioral and lifestyle changes like diet, smoking and exercise, which account for 40% to 60% of all disease, are far likelier to have an impact on longevity and health-care affordability than genetics and thus should be the center of focus.
The bottom line is that when it comes to technology’s disruption of medicine, Topol believes the genie is already out of the bottle. Some of the best cancer centers are on this path. They are, however, treating a minority of the patients out there.
There are a host of barriers to realizing the promise of personalized medicine — insurance reimbursement, privacy and regulatory issues, information and aggregation issues, among others — but perhaps none so pernicious as resistance.
“The problem is that it takes physicians so long to accept a radical change. And the lag is unacceptable,” Topol said.
Resist as some might, the power of one’s own data is the future of medicine.
“It is only a matter of when,” Topol said. (READ ENTIRETY – Is personalized medicine a myth? By Amanda Enayat; CNN Health; 7/28/12 updated 1:06 PM EDT)
What will happen to Monetary Policy with Janet Yellen as Fed Chairperson?
Sent: 9/30/2013 9:34 AM
What will the effects on Monetary Policy be for Individual Prosperity with Janet Yellen [Link added by Blog Editor] as Federal Reserve Chairperson [with] her Husband’s views on worldwide Population growth?
Janet Yellen and George Akerlof
The President [Blog Editor: In this article the “President” is referring to the President of the Philippines.] and his advisors may completely disregard the prophecy made in the 1970s by the late Pope Paul VI that the widespread use of contraceptives would actually lead to all these moral and socio-economic evils. They, however, cannot ignore the scientific studies done by a Nobel laureate by the name of George Akerlof. They don’t have to take my word for it. Dr. Akerlof is easily accessible through Google. If the President himself takes time to google the name George Akerlof, he will find abundant materials that this economics professor has written about the high correlation between contraception and high rates of divorce, abortion, single mothers, etc. He will find out that Dr. Akerlof has no religious motivation whatsoever in presenting his data to the social scientists of the world. His conclusions are based completely on empirical observations.
Actually, Dr. Akerlof has just demonstrated scientifically what everyday observation based on anecdotal evidence has already revealed to any objective student of human behavior. In countries where artificial contraceptives are as easily accessible as candies in the corner store, the rate of abortions has risen by leaps and bounds in the last twenty to thirty years, especially in North America and Europe. As regards divorce and out-of-wedlock births, Dr. Akerlof’s empirical conclusions have been confirmed by a recent study conducted by a multinational team of social scientists in a project entitled The Empty Cradle (also accessible through Google).
The study found out that “accompanying the global mega-trend of falling birthrates is a radical change in the circumstances in which many children are raised, as country after country has seen divorce and/or out-of-wedlock births surge and a sharp drop in the percentage of children living with both of their married parents. In much of Europe and the Americas, from the United Kingdom to the United States, from Mexico to Sweden, out-of-wedlock births are the ‘new normal,’ with 40 percent or more of all children born without married parents. Though many of these births are to cohabiting couples, families headed by cohabiting couples are significantly less stable than couples headed by married families. This means that children born outside of marriage are markedly more likely to be exposed to a revolving cast of caretakers and to spells of single parenthood compared to children born to married couples.” (Little chance for RH Bill; By Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas; Inquirer Business; 10/14/11)
[Blog Editor: Video about Yellen’s nomination and a critical look at her QE continuation are additions placed by me.]
VIDEO: President Obama Nominates Janet Yellen As Federal Reserve Chairwoman
Janet Yellen: The Wrong Choice
President Obama is widely expected to announce this afternoon that he is nominating Fed governor Janet Yellen as the next chairman of the Federal Reserve, the most powerful institution in the world.
I am sure Yellen’s nomination will receive the standard praiseworthy platitudes from a wide array of sycophants deeply embedded in the system.
For those pleasantly hoodwinked by the charades masquerading as our current central bank policy, a Yellen-led Federal Reserve should look just divine. Meanwhile those watching closely would call her style of central banking little more than smoke and mirrors.
Creating bubbles via QE may be nice for those with excess reserves buying cheap assets (i.e. Wall Street banks and the like), but let’s be honest. How has QE really helped the Fed in its stated mandates of lowering unemployment and generating stable prices? (READ ENTIRETY – Janet Yellen: The Wrong Choice; By Larry Doyle; Sense on Cents; 10/9/13 9:03 AM)
FW: I think the way forward with this healthcare debacle between is this …
Sent: 10/3/2013 9:04 AM
Because there is no way to stop this Mobster of a Healthcare Policy from Collapsing the whole entire industry, I think the way forward with this healthcare debacle between is this …. Why not create a subsidy exchange for everyone to graduate into the exchanges rather than just some getting a subsidy and others not??
I think this would equalize the way the market and corporations ebb and flow into the relationship or partnership between public and private sector entities?
Allowing the private sector some sort of way to offer subsides to cost share in the insurance premium markets and the ACA [Affordable Care Act] be a Guarantee of those subsidies much like say the SBA, HUD and Fanny and Freddy guarantees private sector funding should be considered so the Relationship between Public and Private sector markets can be streamlined and allow the system to work inspirationally.
The Inspiration to help people will be better served I think and this will open the door to solving the Government shutdown because this offers the Republicans a method of policy that compliments conservative values and at the same time keeps the ACA helping with the failing system much like how a Governor on a Motor regulates its RPM so it doesn’t blow a Head Gasket when under extreme compression due to demand for power to pull a heavy load. And this is what you are trying to maintain right while we navigate the “Bumps and Hills” in the road to success????
I think you can be the one to offer a “National Subsidy Fix” to a Stalled out debate here that cannot be refused because of the way the private sector market can rally around the “Same Relationship like the other Government agencies work to guarantee funding flows”.
To further build on this idea about how to equally subside the ACA healthcare exchanges, we should debate a “Rewards Based Subsidy Program” maybe????
I think tailoring something like the way Auto Insurance is considerate in that if a family is prudent in carefully creating a living practice that results in less accidents a reward of lower costs to premiums is the result means that this would be true in healthcare too. And that a doctor or medical providers cost structure would be based off an ACA annual report on medical usage. And that if the costs are rising that more educational values need to be implemented to drive societal understanding of its need to be better at performance of their healthcare. So [then] costs can be controlled and “Rewards” sustained in the Subsidy Exchanges which under the ACA Subsidy Exchanges associated with the ACA Healthcare exchanges would be then accessible to families that provide performance records that show less usage. And they be rewarded for this performance in less premium costs and that subsidy exchange then grows in value to afford a sector where costs are needing greater subsidy to offset their costs.
This seems to be a Strategy I heard the insurance company named Tenet Healthcare this morning use in picking areas to invest in and associated with the ACA. But this needs to be a National strategy and so doing something with the subsidy policy needs to be the catalyst for bringing together supplement exchanges to equalize lower cash flow areas in the USA with higher. So that the Insurance Companies do not squeeze the higher cash flow areas for profits forcing more and more onto the Government exchanges . . .
“Cash Flow is the driving factor and of course you know this but the idea that this subsidy can be a market that the investing community can invest in to recycle unused capital and reallocate it based off an ebb and flow of healthcare performance” can be achieved here I think. But I think you have to create the rewards policy that will drive performance in individuals trying to be as healthy as possible.
“Make it a Sport to be as healthy at living as Possible and I think we all win”!!!!
Thanks and have a great day.
Obama-Backed Trans-Pacific Partnership Expands Corporate Lawsuits Against Nations for Lost Profits
Sent: 10/3/2013 10:19 AM
Listen to this video at 11:00 forward, it has a part at 12:45 that will REALLY PISS YOU OFF!!!!
I heard something in this video about healthcare costs associated with medicine costs being escalated at the 11:00 frame going forward too.
Here is more on the Cost of Medicine going up due to the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership]:
Obama-Backed Trans-Pacific Partnership Expands Corporate Lawsuits Against Nations for Lost Profits
The Obama administration is facing increasing scrutiny for the extreme secrecy surrounding negotiations around a sweeping new trade deal that could rewrite the nation’s laws on everything from healthcare and Internet freedom to food safety and the financial markets. The latest negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) were recently held behind closed doors in Lima, Peru, but the Obama administration has rejected calls to release the current text. Even members of Congress have complained about being shut out of the negotiation process. Last year, a leaked chapter from the draft agreement outlined how the TPP would allow foreign corporations operating in the United States to appeal key regulations to an international tribunal. The body would have the power to override U.S. law and issue penalties for failure to comply with its rulings.
We discuss the TPP with two guests: Celeste Drake, a trade policy specialist with the AFL-CIO, and Jim Shultz, executive director of the Democracy Center, which has just released a new report on how corporations use trade rules to seize resources and undermine democracy. “What is the biggest natural resources without any regard for the environment or labor standards? The threat is democracy,” Shultz says, (READ THE REST – Obama-Backed Trans-Pacific Partnership Expands …; from: a daily independent global news hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González; Democracy Now; 6/6/13)
The government knows it’s a medical killing machine
Sent: 10/6/2013 8:20 AM
Here are four smoking guns that substantiate the title of this article.
Smoking gun #1: As I detailed in my two previous articles (click here and here), Dr. Barbara Starfield’s article in the July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”, spelled out the damage:
The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans per year. That’s well over two MILLION deaths per decade.
The US government supports, in numerous ways, this system. And now, through the implementation of Obamacare, many more previously uninsured Americans will enter the killing fields.
Dr. Starfield’s data are not classified. They’re not a state secret. Any doctor or medical bureaucrat has access to them.
Yet nothing of note is being done to remedy the ongoing crime.
Smoking gun #2: Starfield’s report indicated that, every year in the US, 106,000 Americans die as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs.
The FDA is the only agency tasked with certifying these drugs as safe and effective. With such certification, the drugs enter the public pipeline.
On the FDA’s own website, under the heading, “Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions,” appears the following text: “Over 2 MILLION ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions] yearly; 100,000 DEATHS yearly; ADRs 4th leading cause of death…”
Astonishingly, the FDA takes no responsibility for any of this. They, and only they, can approve the drugs as safe and effective. They list the numbers of deaths and … (READ THE REST – The government knows it’s a medical killing machine; By Jon Rappoport; Jon Rappoport’s Blog; 10/5/13)
If Obamacare ends up limiting treatment options then …
Sent: 10/6/2013 12:38 PM
If Obamacare ends up limiting treatment options then that will fit well with these concerns, right?????
Just like all MSMedia does, See how even the Weather Channel is packing water for the population control policy makers:
How We’re All Going to Die in 2050
Doctors likely won’t list overpopulation as a cause of death in 2050, but research shows that it could contribute to several deadly problems, according to the Negative Population Growth organization (NPG).
“The consequences of U.S. overpopulation already surround us: vanishing green spaces, increasing urban sprawl and development, overcrowded schools, understaffed hospitals, rising unemployment, dwindling natural resources, a decaying infrastructure and environmental destruction,” Tracy Canada, deputy director of the NPG, told Weather.com. “These problems are part of our daily lives as American citizens, and none of them are in any way improved by our nation’s growth. In fact, they are all worsened by adding more people to the equation.”
In 2011, the United Nations estimated the world population was 7 billion, and could reach 8 billion in 2023. After the largest population increase of any decade, America’s population sits at approximately 315 million and is projected to hit 363 million in 2030, according to the NPG.
“Basic needs — clean water, protection from floodwaters, safe and passable roadways, usable sewage systems, adequate educational facilities, electricity — will become more difficult to … (READ THE REST [if you are inclined to a Leftist one world government] – How We’re All Going to Die in 2050; By Jeffrey Kopman; Weather.com; 10/4/13)
It’s PAST TIME to Bring Back the “BALANCE OF POWER IN THE U.S.A.”!!!!!!!!!
Sent: 10/7/2013 10:14 AM
VIDEO: Behold A Pale Horse “America’s Last Chance” Part One
Does OBAMACARE DIVIDE SOCIETY?
Sent: 10/8/2013 1:35 PM
Exchanges & Premium Subsidies
One of the main features of ObamaCare is the creation of a new federally-financed health care entitlement that will subsidize the insurance premiums for low and moderate income Americans, beginning in 2014. The amount of the subsidy is inversely related to family income and will be a administered by new state-based “exchanges” that will replace today’s small group and individual markets for health insurance.
ObamaCare creates new entities in every state through which individuals buying insurance on their own must purchase their government-approved insurance. In addition, many small businesses employees will get their insurance through the exchanges as well because their employers will not offer coverage to their workers under ObamaCare’s rules for employer participation (see “Employer Mandate”).
Households with incomes below 400 percent and above 133 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL) who are enrolled in insurance plans offered through the exchanges are eligible for premium assistance financed by the federal government (Medicaid will cover families with incomes below 133 percent of FPL). In 2010, the FPL is $22,050 for family of four. The new law establishes a sliding scale of assistance based on limitations on required family contributions to the cost of coverage. For instance, at 150 percent of FPL in 2014, ObamaCare limits the amount that such households must contribute toward their health insurance premium to 4 percent of their annual income. At 400 percent of the FPL, households must contribute 9.5 percent of their income toward insurance premiums. Whatever portion of the total health insurance premium for their coverage is not paid by these households is covered by the new federal premium assistance program.
Estimated Federal Costs and the “Firewall”
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that this new premium assistance program will cost $113 billion annually by 2019, with premium assistance going to an additional 19 million Americans (the Medicaid expansion will add 16 million new people to the program at a cost of $97 billion in 2017).
This CBO estimate of the cost of premium assistance assumes that tens of millions of otherwise eligible households will not be eligible for this new entitlement because … (READ THE REST – Exchanges & Premium Subsidies; By ObamaCare Watch – Part of e21)
© Tony Newbill
Edited by John R. Houk
Brackets indicate Editor additions or contributions