Tag Archives: health care

To Congresswoman Michele Bachmann: Try ‘Honesty’ For A Change; You Will Find That In The Dictionary Before You Get To ‘Hypocrite’

Our Nation faces a profound crisis, my friends.  We face a crisis of ethics and principles because, as best I can tell, we live in a country where many of our most outspoken leaders are bereft of either.

The poster child for this ethical crisis is Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, pictured below.

I have watched and listened to this Queen of the Harpies for months now, and I am utterly convinced that she grits those Chiclet teeth of hers together to hide the forked tongue with which she spews her treasonous venom.  However, I don’t intend to write about her rabble-rousing statements here.  She is already well-known for such statements, which is what makes her the darling of those hat-wearing imbeciles, the Tea Baggers.  Instead, I intend to remark on a more common problem that this “lady” suffers in spades – she is a two-faced liar.  Moreover, liberals, moderates, and conservatives everywhere who have any interest in integrity in government should start calling her out for what she is.

While Ms. Bachmann spouted off against President Obama’s financial reforms, her District – the Sixth Congressional District – languished with the worst foreclosure rates in the entire State of Minnesota.  In 2008, the district had the highest number of foreclosures in Minnesota and the highest rate of foreclosures. When 2009 drew to a close, that sad trend continued, but did nothing to abate Bachmann’s arrogance or idiocy.  Moreover, according to new data from HousingLink and the Minnesota County Sheriffs’ Offices, the Sixth Congressional District continues to be disproportionately impacted by the foreclosure crisis despite its representative’s reticence to vote for foreclosure relief legislation. Why should she?  It’s not her house on the chopping block, is it?

Is that where her lies and hypocrisy ends?  Hell no it isn’t!  Ms. Bachmann has forged quite the national identity for herself by calling President Obama’s health care reforms “socialism.”  Consider this quote from the “good” Congresswoman when encouraging a march on Washington to oppose health care reform:

“Nothing is more effective at reaching a congressman than having a citizen come to Washington, D.C. – not asking for a handout, not asking for tax money, not asking to take some liberty away from somebody else, but just asking for freedom.”

I want to make sure you got that – being a good American, to Ms. Bachmann, means “not asking for a handout” and “not asking for tax money.”  Did you get that?

If that is what it means to be a good American, then why is it that Ms. Bachmann and her husband’s business – Bachmann and Associates, Inc. – take in tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money?  What is Bachmann & Associates, you ask?  Bachmann & Associates is a Christian mental health clinic run by Bachmann’s husband.  It opened in 2003, and since that time it has been taking money from Minnesota’s public funds (that means taxpayer money) under two different provisions of law.  Both provisions of law, one known as Rule 29 funds and the other as Rule 31 funds, are voluntary for health clinics, meaning that the Bachmann’s were not required to sign up under these rules to operate their clinic.  They chose to sign up for them!  Now who’s the good American, eh?

That must be the extent of her fraud on the public, isn’t it?  Not so fast.  In addition to the thousands of dollars the Bachmann have received in “socialized medicine” payments, her family is estimated to have received more than $250,000 in farm subsidies over the past decade.  What happened to that whole “not going to Washington looking for a handout” thing, Michele?

The bottom line is this – Michele Bachmann is a hypocrite and a liar.  Her advocacy of issues is selective – it is perfectly ok for her and her family to get rich off of government funds, but damn you if you want to get in on a little bit of assistance to pay for a doctor’s visit.  You are a “SOCIALIST” and any politician who agrees with you is a “SOCIALIST!”

Hey, Michele, while you’re looking up the word “honesty” in the dictionary, you might want to try looking up the word “socialist,” too.  You will find that word a wee bit before the word “succubus.”  For succubus, you only need to look in the mirror.

For further reading on Ms. Bachmann, check out this report from the Minnesota Independent.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Advertisements

Lawyer – Wait, I Mean Dentist – Orly Taitz Files Lawsuit Against New Health Care Law

Care to know who has joined the “illustrious” group of lawyers filing lawsuits against the new health care bill signed into law by President Obama?  You guessed it, Claimed Lawyer – Apparent Dentist – Birther Queen – and  All-Around Weirdo Orly Taitz.  In a barely-reasoned, badly-drafted Complaint – in which she mis-spells the title of her own court document – Taitz alleges that the new health care law is a:

“VIOLATION OF COMMERCE CLAUSE AND OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS TO GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT AS A DOCTOR OF DENTAL SURGERY UPON DEFENDANT’S IMMINENT SIGHNING OF THE HEALTH BILL”  (Error in original.)

Huh?

But, wait…it gets better. Dr. Orly waxes on, eloquently pleading:

“Health bill, as being prepared and reconciled, will create an enormous machine of governmental burocracy which will intrude into Plaintiff’s practice, will affect her doctor-patient relations, will undermine her Hippocratic oath, will force her to ration medical care and de-facto deny medical care to elderly, whom some committees of burocrats will deem to be too old to receive such care, meaning too old to live.” (Multiple and inexcusable errors in original.)

Orly Taitz concerned me enough when I only knew her to be a sham lawyer, completely incapable of sound legal reasoning, and apparently absent from law school the day they discussed the “actual cases and controversies” clause from the Constitution.  But she’s also a dentist!?!  I mean, I knew she put Dr. in front of her name, but I certainly did not think she seriously meant that she provided, gulp, medical care to actual people.  With sharp instruments and everything!?!

Apparently, Orly did not get a big enough cup of hot, steaming whoop-ass from her last foray into a courtroom.  As some of you may recall, Orly was sanctioned and severely criticized by a Federal judge last year for filing a frivolous lawsuit against President Obama.  In a 30-page opinion, the Judge criticized Orly for, among other things:

  1. Using “rhetoric” that is designed to inflame the “emotions” of her followers instead of real legal arguments; (Orly:  “What are legal arguments?”)
  2. Failing to properly file and serve the defendants in the case so as to give them notice of the case; (Orly:  “That rule didn’t apply to me, did it?”)
  3. An attempt by Taitz to dump two of her clients because she did not like working with their counsel; (Orly:  “I never said I was a people person.”)
  4. Asking supporters to contact the court in an attempt to influence the decision; and (Orly:  “Is that wrong?”)
  5. Possibly asking some witnesses to perjure themselves before the court.  (Orly:  “They were just little, white lies.”)

You can link to additional articles about Orly here and here.

And, yet, no article about Orly Taitz would be complete without at least one photo of the Dr. herself – now, ask yourself, would you want her standing up for you in court?  Or, coming at you with a dentist’s drill and a pair of pliers?  If you answer yes to either of these questions, you need more than a dentist.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Same-Sex Couples Benefit From Un-Noticed Provisions Of Health Care Bill

140px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svgAccording to the New York Times and Metro Weekly, Washington D.C.’s lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT) newspaper, the health care bill passed by Congress late last night may benefit gay and lesbian couples by reason of unnoticed provision sponsored by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Washington).  This new development is explained further by information posted on the Human Rights Campaign Fund (HRC) website.

According to the information HRC posted, the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” H.R. 3962, contains several provisions of interest to the lesbian and gay communities.  As the law stands now, lesbian and gay couples are required to pay federal taxes on health benefits provided by their employer as if these benefits were extra income.  Married, heterosexual couples do not.  The health care bill designates lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as a “health disparities population.”  Significantly, this opens up health data collection and grant program focused on health disparities as they relate to sexual orientation and gender identity issues.

The health care bill will also effectively end the taxation of health benefits provided to same-sex couples by incorporating the language of the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act.  This will immediately benefit same-sex families by freeing up additional monetary resources to pay for their needs.  Quoting M. V. Lee Badgett, a labor economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the New York Times article stated that employees with domestic partner benefits paid an average of $1,100 a year more in taxes than married employees with the same coverage.

Rep. McDermott said these changes will ‘correct a longstanding injustice, end a blatant inequity in the tax code and help make health care coverage more affordable for more Americans.”

In addition, HRC  listed the “Early Treatment for HIV Act,” which would allow states to cover early HIV treatment through their Medicaid programs.  Presently, states may withhold treatment for Medicaid recipients until they develop full-blown AIDS.  This one addition to the health care bill alone will improve health care for low-income people living with HIV and will put the Medicaid system more squarely in the arena of best practices for HIV care, which emphasizes early treatment and not delaying until the onset of AIDS.  In the long run, early intervention also saves taxpayer dollars rather than waiting until emergency or life-threatening illnesses develop because those illnesses are more difficult and costly to treat.

Finally, and perhaps most significant from a civil rights perspective, the health care bill outlaws the considering of any personal characteristics unrelated to the provision of health care.  HRC reports that it worked with a coalition of civil rights groups to develop and lobby for this language.  No federal protections currently exist that prohibit the consideration of unrelated personal characteristics by private insurers.

Lesbian and gay couples are not the only ones to benefit from the health care bill.  The bill overhauls the current sex education system, which emphasizes abstinence from sex by young people.  This abstinence-based approach by the federal government is estimated to have cost taxpayers roughly $1 billion dollars, and is generally regarded as a failure particularly in terms of halting the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.  The health care bill provides funding for comprehensive sex education programs which focus not only on abstinence, but also reducing teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

The bill also mandates nutritional labeling changes for food that is sold in vending machines.  This new law would require vendors with 20 or more vending machines to post a sign near the vending machines that “clearly and conspicuously” states the number of calories in the food products.

From a progressive perspective, the new provisions pertaining to same-sex couples are definitely steps in the right direction.  However, when it comes to equalizing the federal benefits conferred on married couples with the near-total absence of benefits bestowed on same-sex couples, the health care bill is merely a first step.  In matters of federal taxation, in particular, enormous disparities remain.  For example, under the Internal Revenue Code, a spouse can transfer real property to the other spouse without triggering any adverse tax consequences under the “stepped up basis” provisions of the IRC.  Same-sex couples who transfer property to each other – even if they are registered under a domestic partnership or civil union system – do not receive such benefits.  Federal public benefits, like social security benefits, are another area where improvements are woefully lacking.

The federal government enacted legislation entitled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.  DOMA states:

  1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
  2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

DOMA is largely responsible for creating a legislative roadblock to improvements in this area.  A Constitutional Amendment to strictly limit marriage to one man and one woman has been hotly debated, but has not garnered sufficient support to be a viable alternative for opponents of same-sex marriage.