Washington, D.C. – New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Governor David Paterson are asking the federal government to deny New York City residents on food stamps the ability to use aid to buy certain beverages. Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network, sees this as a warning about the limits to freedom that inevitably come with increased government dependency.

“Efforts by Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson to use the power of the government to control the dietary choices of Americans on food stamps should serve as a warning that dependency leads to a loss of freedom,” said Project 21′s Borelli. “Once someone is on the government’s plantation, politicians will inevitably try to leverage this power to control every aspect of their life. They think they know what’s best for everyone else.”

Under the rules governing food stamps, there are currently only prohibitions on the purchase of certain prepared foods, alcohol, tobacco and vitamins. Bloomberg and Paterson, however, now want permission from the federal government to prohibit New York City’s 1.7 million residents using food stamps from buying certain sugary drinks. The politicians want to see how this affects obesity statistics. Such a restriction on assistance to the poor would be the first of its kind anywhere in America.

“Controlling poor peoples’ diets is likely only the first step. This attempted power-grab shows there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to government dependency,” added Borelli. “When the government pays the bills, it will use this power of the purse to control peoples’ lives. From this example, it’s not hard to see how the government can use its increasing command over the health care system to dictate additional lifestyle choices.”

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Washington, D.C.: Chronically low Medicare reimbursement rates to physicians and hospitals are forcing doctors to limit the number of Medicare patients they see – or opt out of the program altogether – with devastating results to seniors’ health care options, says a new study, “Medicare Doctor Shortage Endangers Seniors’ Access to Care,” by Matt Patterson of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

From the Southwest to Florida, from the Midwest to New York, primary care doctors and specialists at both hospitals and private practices are turning away Medicare patients because they cannot afford to treat them, the study concludes.

The report analyzes government data, health care provider statistics, and news reports from across the country to paint a frightening picture of a government program failing the most vulnerable members of our society: our seniors. Among the findings:

* Some Mayo Clinic facilities are no longer accepting Medicare patients for primary care, turning thousands of seniors away from their trusted physicians.

* 30 percent of Medicare patients seeking a new primary care doctor reported difficulty finding one, including 17 percent who claim they had “big” problems finding a new doctor.

* Only 73 percent of Medicare participating family doctors are accepting new Medicare patients.

* Only 38 percent of Texas primary care physicians say they will accept new Medicare patients in the face of low Medicare reimbursements.

* More than half of California hospitals reported operating at a loss, due in part to low Medicare reimbursements.

* Hospitals in Iowa report trouble recruiting new doctors thanks to low Medicare reimbursements, and warn that the trend may be a threat to the quality of future care.

Says Patterson, “At a time when President Barack Obama is proposing yet another $1 trillion health care plan, Medicare – the original government health insurance program – is going bankrupt, underfunding doctors, and cheating seniors out of care. Why don’t we worry about meeting our existing health care obligations before we take on additional burdens?”

“Medicare Doctor Shortage Endangers Seniors’ Access to Care,” by Matt Patterson, is available on the National Center For Public Policy Research website at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA602.html.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

“After the Obama Administration tried to put itself between me and my doctor with its health care plan, the White House – along with Governor David Paterson and Mayor Gavin Newsom – now want to come between me and my can of soda,” said Borelli.

“Raising taxes during hard economic times is a horrible idea and it’s doomed to failure,” added Borelli. “Elected officials should be focused on lowering taxes to getting our economy growing in order to stimulate job growth. Instead you have Mayor Newsom in San Francisco and Governor Paterson in New York using the ‘obesity card’ to make up for their budget shortfalls. Punishing consumers, beverage companies, bottling companies and small business owners will only add to our economic troubles. These politicians need to put themselves on a spending diet and worry about their bloated budgets and let me worry about my waistline.”

Borelli continued: “And then you’ve got Michelle Obama and the Obama Administration leaning on schools and on the beverage and snack food industries to reform their wicked ways. In spreading their gospel against sugary treats, they will hurt the ability of Paterson and Newsom to reap their sin taxes. It’s clear the progressives can’t have it both ways despite their ambitions. The only one harmed in the end will be the American consumer.”

In New York, Governor David Paterson (D) has reintroduced a $1.28 per gallon tax on sugared sodas – a proposal he first proposed and later abandoned in 2009. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) has announced his intention to introduce legislation to impose a undisclosed fee on retailers selling sugary beverages. By targeting retailers, Newsom bypasses the need to subject the tax to a voter referendum.

At the same time, First Lady Michelle Obama is the public face of the Obama Administration’s legislative drive to attack the presence of soda and snacks in schools. On February 9, she announced the “Let’s Move” campaign to allegedly “end the American plague of childhood obesity in a single generation.” While she asserted the role of the government would be “minor” in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” program, her husband is creating a federal task force on the issue charged with formulating a “long-term action plan.” Additionally, Obama Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on February 8 that he intends to ban candy and soda from schools. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) is expected to introduce legislation codifying this ban as part of the reauthorization of school meal programs.

“Social engineering is at the heart of the progressive movement,” Borelli continued. “The Obama Administration sought a cap-and-trade emissions policy that would raise energy prices and thus force Americans to use less energy. Then it was government mandates on health issues. Now, it’s discriminatory taxes on food and beverages. It seems there is nothing the so-called progressives will not tax and no liberty they will not assault to support their worldview.”

According to Britain’s state-managed health service, cataract surgery is a “common” and “straightforward” operation that usually should last between 15 and 20 minutes. But such a quick turnaround would have been news to Richard Adams of London, who went blind in both eyes while waiting three years for cataract surgery.

The 85-year-old retired engineer and award-winning dancer began losing his vision in 2004. That year, doctors diagnosed Adams with cataracts, but an operation to remove them was not scheduled until March 2007.

His excitement in 2007 at the prospect of getting his sight and livelihood back was short-lived because doctors canceled the surgery.

“I was over the moon when I found out I had an appointment in March [2007] but when it was canceled I just went downhill,” Adams said at the time.

Stuck in a wheelchair and suffering from asthma as well as kidney stones (also left untreated by the NHS, he said), Adams had difficulty performing everyday tasks. “I never cook anything,” Adams explained then. “It always has to be cold things like sandwiches or salad. I can’t go to the shops because I can’t see where I’m going.”

In despair, Adams said his life was “being wasted”: “I have all these ideas in my head but I can’t see to write and I can’t see to draw. All I can do is sit in my house and listen to the TV. I can’t see it and I have to turn up the volume because I can’t hear well.”

Spokesman Mark Purcell of Ealing Hospital, one of several hospitals that refused Adams treatment for his eyes, offered no sympathy. “If [Adams] has a complaint about the standard of care he has received he should write to the chief executive of the Ealing Hospital Trust.” (Whether this bureaucratic solution, which asked a blind man to write, was intentionally or inadvertently cruel is unknown.)

Adams was scheduled to receive treatment in late May, but this was little consolation for him. “I’ve been waiting for three years but they don’t seem to care. I think they’re just waiting for me to die or something,” Adams complained.

Finally, after Adams’ plight received attention from the British press, doctors removed the cataracts in one of his eyes in June 2007.

“He was really pleased with the result of the operation,” said Roger Woolsey, a family friend. “When I went to visit him he would raise the eye-patch and say: I really can see again.”

Tragically, four days after the procedure that restored his sight, Adams died. He had a heart attack after developing blood poisoning in the hospital.

# # #

This is one of a hundred stories in the new book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care published by the National Center for Public Policy Research and written by Amy Ridenour and Ryan Balis. Permission is granted to reproduce this story and other stories from Shattered Lives on condition that a link to http://www.nationalcenter.org/ShatteredLives.html is included with the reprint. To request interviews with the authors or other information, contact Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 or email info@nationalcenter.org.

Two men, both seriously ill, occupied the same hospital room. One man was allowed to sit up in his bed for an hour each afternoon to help drain the fluid from his lungs.

His bed was next to the room’s only window.

The other man had to spend all his time flat on his back.

The men talked for hours on end.

They spoke of their wives and families, their homes, their jobs, their involvement in the military service, where they had been on vacation..

Every afternoon, when the man in the bed by the window could sit up, he would pass the time by describing to his roommate all the things he could see outside the window..

The man in the other bed began to live for those one hour periods where his world would be broadened and enlivened by all the activity and color of the world outside.

The window overlooked a park with a lovely lake.

Ducks and swans played on the water while children sailed their model boats. Young lovers walked arm in arm amidst flowers of every color and a fine view of the city skyline could be seen in the distance.

As the man by the window described all this in exquisite details, the man on the other side of the room would close his eyes and imagine this picturesque scene.

One warm afternoon, the man by the window described a parade passing by.

Although the other man could not hear the band – he could see it in his mind’s eye as the gentleman by the window portrayed it with descriptive words.

Days, weeks and months passed.

One morning, the day nurse arrived to bring water for their baths only to find the lifeless body of the man by the window, who had died peacefully in his sleep.

She was saddened and called the hospital attendants to take the body away.!

As soon as it seemed appropriate, the other man asked if he could be moved next to the window. The nurse was happy to make the switch, and after making sure he was comfortable, she left him alone.

Slowly, painfully, he propped himself up on one elbow to take his first look at the real world outside.
He strained to slowly turn to look out the window besides the bed.

It faced a blank wall.

The man asked the nurse what could have compelled his deceased roommate who had described such wonderful things outside this window.

The nurse responded that the man was blind and could not even see the wall.

She said, ‘Perhaps he just wanted to encourage you.’

Epilogue:

There is tremendous happiness in making others happy, despite our own situations.

Shared grief is half the sorrow, but happiness when shared, is doubled.

The piling on comes when Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. uses Obama’s stupid comparison and states that if it wasn’t for the Post Office, FedEx, UPS and DHL would be charging $100 a letter. Is that what capitalism and free enterprise needs is a “public option” from the government to keep competitive businesses……well, competitive? He seems to think so. Video below the fold.

And speaking of the Post Office, I had to pay them a visit this morning. Generally, I keep stamps on hand and if I have a package to mail I go to the “dumb” teller in the lobby so I don’t have to stand in long lines and watch the non productivity (sorry! I have friends and family who are postal workers and some retired).

As I stood in line with my two packages, one just a bit too long to fit in the “dumb” drop box, I watched as postal workers, some front desk clerks, others behind-the-scenes mail sorters busy having chat sessions and glancing toward the lobby hoping nobody would notice. It was quite obvious customer service didn’t come first. Good golly! That public option at work!

I don’t want to pick on postal workers because I’m sure the same goes on in many places but besides all that, recall the announcement that the Post Office is going broke. The government can’t run that business and the President admitted it. But Jesse Jackson, Jr. thinks it’s the Post Office that keeps our UPS and FedEx package prices down.

He exclaims that the public option in the health care bill would be just like the United States Post Office. Does that mean I can go to the Post Office, mail my letters and get a flu shot? S-W-E-E-E-E-T!

In light of the ABC World News program’s decision to host a “Town Hall” meeting on health care at the White House without opposition participation, the National Center for Public Policy Research is making a list of ABC World News sponsors available online for those who wish to boycott sponsors or/or send a letter of protest to them.

The list of sponsors includes sponsors from the June 18, 2009 program – the date ABC announced the White House-based program would take place – to the present and beyond, and is available at www.nationalcenter.org/ABCNewsSponsors.html.

“Town Hall meetings are generally understood to cover a wide range of viewpoints,” said National Center for Public Policy Research president Amy Ridenour, “and network newscasts are supposed to be objective. Yet ABC is holding a Town Meeting with the chief backer of government-run health care at a venue entirely favorable to him, and inviting opposition only in the form of questions to him from a generalized audience placed in an entirely inferior position. An objective conversation is impossible under those conditions.”

“Moreover,” said Ridenour, “ABC News has refused offers from opponents of the President’s plan even to buy paid advertising during scheduled commercial breaks. ABC is not only pitching for Obama, it’s pitching him a no-hitter.”

“Many Americans, probably millions, believe so-called ‘ObamaCare’ will lead to shortages of health care services, leading to pain, misery and even death,” Ridenour continued, “as this is the experience of every nation that has tried government-run health care so far, The health care debate is literally life-and-death, yet ABC is treating it like an afternoon tea at the White House.”

“Because of this,” she concluded, “the National Center for Public Policy Research is posting online a list of all the sponsors of ABC World News since ABC announced this program, and we encourage people to make their views — including, if they so choose, with their wallets — known to ABC’s sponsors.”

The list of ABC World News sponsors can be found online at www.nationalcenter.org/ABCNewsSponsors.html.

Founded in 1982, The National Center for Public Policy Research is non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation based in Washington, DC. 94% of its revenue is derived through hundreds of thousands of small contributions, 1.5% of its revenue from corporations and 4.5% from philanthropic foundations.