Posts Tagged ‘healthcare’

The Hill notices that the SEIU is saying one thing

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is lobbying hard against the amendment offered by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) to repeal the healthcare reform law.

SEIU has sent e-mails to Senate offices urging lawmakers to vote against the proposal to unwind President Obama’s signature domestic initiative.

Their lobbying has proved effective:

every last Democrat voted no (Lieberman and Mark Warner missed the roll), which is a credit either to Reid and Durbin in keeping the caucus together or to the nutroots in intimidating vulnerable Dems with the prospect of primary challenges in 2012. For cripes sake, even Ben Nelson voted against it.

Meanwhile as they preserve the law for us for themselves it’s another story

SEIU’s outspoken defense of the law has prompted charges of hypocrisy from Republicans, given that some of the union’s chapters have sought waivers exempting them from a key provision of the law requiring the phaseout of health plans with low caps on annual benefits.

Michelle Malkin has been all over this

And the Service Employees International Union, which poured $60 million into Democrat/Obama coffers in 2008 and millions more into the Astroturf campaign for the federal health care takeover, added four new affiliates to the waiver list:

– SEIU Local 2000 Health and Welfare Fund, representing 161 enrollees
– SEIU 32BJ North Health Benefit Fund, representing 7,020 enrollees
– SEIU Local 300, Civil Service Forum Employees Welfare Fund, representing 2,000 enrollees
– SEIU Health & Welfare Fund representing 1,620

That’s in addition to three other previous SEIU waiver winners: Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees; Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees; and SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees — which brings the total number of Obamacare-promoting SEIU Obamacare refugees to an estimated 45,000 workers represented by seven SEIU locals.

And a fuller list listing all the other unions, is available here with the following note:

It is worth noting that there are 166 union benefits funds now exempted from this requirement, which account for about 40 percent of the exempted workers. This means that although there are only 14.6 million unionized employees in the United States, and 860,000 of them are already exempted from this provision of Obamacare.

Unions are huge democratic contributes, anyone who think this is a coincidence is fooling themselves

Reid BTW was very smart to get this vote over with ASAP, but I’m REALLY surprised that he didn’t give any of his folks cover. Either he figured it was early enough or that because of the first vote it wouldn’t have made a difference.

The Media will want to move away from this ASAP but the GOP will keep this vote in front of the faces for quite a while and if the opinion of the people I talk to door to door has any weight, it will be crushing come 2012.

Update: Hot air notices

The Obama administration seems very eager to impose regulation on everyone except their bestest buddies. If these policies are so bad that Obama’s friends and political allies need waivers to get around them, then perhaps they shouldn’t be in place at all. And perhaps the Obama administration should learn something about the rule of law, rather than the rule of whim — or as the rest of us call it, The Chicago Way.

Yup.

but the one thing you don’t do is mess with the blood supply:

A government health committee Friday recommended not changing the ban on gay men donating blood but also called for new research on alternative policies, citing flaws in the current rules.

Gay men have been prohibited from giving blood since 1985. But momentum to change the ban has grown recently, with advocacy groups, blood-collection organizations and members of Congress calling for the Food and Drug Administration to revise the donation rules.

The safety of the US blood supply is of paramount importance, once that is lost or confidence in it is lost all bets are off.

The American Plasma Users Coalition, representing people who depend on the blood supply to maintain health, urged additional research, forecasting that revisions in the donation rules eventually will be made.

But the coalition’s Mark Skinner also said, “It’s not about blood supply; it’s about blood safety … Ultimately the end-user bears 100 percent of the risk.’’

He said, “The fact that it’s discriminatory does not mean it’s wrong if it’s in the interest of public health.’’

Added Corey Dubin, a hemophiliac infected with HIV from a tainted blood product: “This is daily question of survival.’’

Forgetting the risk to lives for a moment if you want to increase litigation and cost to a healthcare system this is the way to do it.

…for those who are so keen to do so for the elderly, a quick question:

There is a story about how a sixteen year old sailor who is trying to sail around the world. There was a scare that she might be lost at sea:

A 16-year-old US sailor who went missing while sailing solo around the world has been found safe and well.

Abby Sunderland’s yacht was spotted by an aerial search team in the southern Indian Ocean, midway between Australia and Africa.

Three ships are on their way to pick her up – the first is expected to be with her in 24 hours.

Now I’m delighted that she is ok and will get home safely but I have a question.

Here is a person who on her own volition decided to put herself in mortal danger for the sake of doing something adventurous. Nobody forced her to take the risks she decided to take.

Yet when her parents lost contact ships and resources are being dispatched to get her out of a mess that she put herself into. Would those same people who are so willing to pull the plug on elderly people decide that it is a waste of considerable resources to save her too?

Of course I believe in erring on the side of life but I’d be very interested if they have the same utilitarian arguments in this case?

…it is because of stories like this:

A fifth of nurses interviewed by researchers admitted that they had been involved in the euthanasia of a patient based on the “assumption” they would want to die. Nearly half of the nurses – 120 of 248 – admitted they had taken part in “terminations without request or consent”.

Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002. It accounts for two per cent of all deaths annually. The law states that patient consent must be given and that doctors must carry out the procedure. But the study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal shows that the rules are routinely flouted and shows how doctors often delegate the administering of fatal drugs to nurses.

You know that old Hippocratic oath had something to it. If you work under the assumption that the job is to preserve life and always err on the side of life you don’t get this type of thing, but once the attitude changes and the idea of cost take precedence the equation changes.

This is the result of a post Christian Europe and it is on its way here. It will not take one year or even 5, but by the time many of those who supported this health care plan become old enough to need this care, they may find that they ended up voting for their own end. In fact you have candidates openly stating this type of stuff today.