Council Of Europe Will Investigate “Faked” Swine Flu Pandemic

Image by Michael Desmarais via Flickr

I have been saying for a very long time that the bird flu, and more recently, swine flu pandemics were falsified in order to get new laws, money, and power in place.  As a result, thousands of innocent victims were given experimental vaccines that ended up having harmful side effects.

There have only been a few, who aren’t registered members of conspiracy kooks quarterly, that have shared my thoughts on this matter.

Much like all the evidence proves man-made global warming is a fraud, all the evidence clearly points to an orchestrated effort to instill panic on the swine flu.  The CDC even inadvertently admitted that they were fudging numbers, and fear-mongering on swine flu.

Now, finally, an major international organization is going to investigate this fraud upon the world’s citizens.  The Council of Europe will investigate the “faked pandemic” to get to the bottom of this farce.  To learn more about the Council of Europe … go here.  They are basically a local European United Nations, and they are legit.

In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.
The “birds-flu”-campaign (2005/06) combined with the “swine-flu”-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies.

The Council of Europe and its member-states should ask for immediate investigations and consequences on their national levels as well as on the international level.

The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers.

Was the drug industry partly responsible for this farce?  Yes, but there is a great point being missed here.  So were the governments who took part.  They weren’t scammed or tricked.  They help orchestrate this whole pandemic in order to pass new laws that bi-passed current law in order to maintain ‘public safety.’

Here’s a couple examples if you don’t believe me:

• Jail time and $1000 a day fine for refusing swine flu vaccine.
• President Obama signing emergency declaration designating H1N1 a national emergency, and authorizing the federal government to waive federal medical requirements and protections to treat swine flu.  Including waiving provisions of Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP.
• Police Chief magazine expressing concerns over the federal pandemic plans to be implemented at a local level.
• S. 2080 allows for marshal law to be invoked now because of swine flu.

I’d like to take this moment to reflect on the health care debate.  If the drug companies are the enemy, and we need the federal government to keep them in check, then why is a prominent international council of nations investigating the influence of those same drug companies upon those same governments?  It seems the government is more, not less, susceptible to the influence of big pharma than the private sector.

When in April 2009 some hundred normal influenza cases in Mexico City were rashly announced to be the beginning of a threatening new pandemic, there was little scientific evidence for this judgement. Nevertheless a large and immediate word-wide agenda setting process started and was eagerly spread by alarmist media and formally legitimized by pandemic-defining WHO, the agency, which is our global epidemiological watchdog and task-force.

Nevertheless we have to observe, that a faked “swine-flu”- pandemic is still used for marketing risky vaccines.

The victims among millions of needlessly vaccinated people must be protected by their states and independent scientific clarification should provide evidence and transparency for national and -if necessary- European courts.

After we discovered that seasonal flu was far more deadly than swine flu in the US, this screams of a blatant fraud upon the people.  Go get ‘em on this.

Related articles by Zemanta

• WHO to examine its H1N1 response (cbc.ca)
• Drug companies face European inquiry over swine flu vaccine stockpiles (guardian.co.uk)
• Poland stands alone in refusing swine flu vaccines (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• EU to Investigate WHO and Swine Flu Pandemic as Pharma Scams (dvorak.org)
• Calling swine flu a pandemic was ‘morally justified’ (newscientist.com)
Technorati Tags: swine flu,H1N1,bird flu,CDC,Council of Europe,WHO,Health care

GOP’s Brown wins Mass. Senate seat in epic upset

Image via Wikipedia

GOP’s Brown wins Mass. Senate seat in epic upset – Yahoo! News.

For the first time since 1972, a Republican will be senator in that state.

Blatant Disregard For US Constitution & Your Liberty Advances In Senate

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The US Senate has advanced the health care bill as expected.  All it took was corruption and bribery to get the votes.  And to think, a few of you out there actually thought your rights weren’t for sale.

Politico:

The Democratic Party’s decades-long push to remake the U.S. health care system cleared a major hurdle early Monday morning, with the Senate voting to advance a massive $871 billion bill to extend coverage to nearly all Americans and tighten regulations on private insurers.

Less than two days after releasing a bill with 383 pages of changes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) corralled his politically diverse caucus and delivered the 60 votes necessary for the most crucial test vote in the legislative process so far — effectively assuring the reform package will clear the Senate later this week.

The final tally was a straight party-line vote, 60-40. All Democrats and two independents voted yes and all Republicans voted no – and each side bitterly accused the other of trying to thwart true reform through petty gamesmanship.

DC is still looking for one Democrat who’s actually read the bill.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Reid Fights for 60th Vote on Health Bill (online.wsj.com)
• Deep in Health Bill, Very Specific Beneficiaries (nytimes.com)
• Poll: Public sours on health overhaul (msnbc.msn.com)
• GOP Leaders Attack Nelson Agreement (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)

Why Is The US Not Looking At The Best Health Care Options?

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

This debate has been going on long enough now.  For those of us following the debate closely, and have read HR 3200, we know that health care reform is less about reform and more about government control and power.

Everyone is picking apart the health care systems of England, France, and Canada.  Those are the systems most in line with the proposed US changes.  Though HR 3200 is far more broad and gives far more power to the federal government than that of the aforementioned countries.

For me … the worst part of this whole thing is how people who support HR 3200 haven’t read it, and are literally supporting completely dismantling our health care for a new system of benefits that haven’t been revealed to us yet.  If HR 3200 passes, we won’t know what the benefits, coverage, individual cost/responsibility are until a panel of people we didn’t vote for gets together and decides what they’ll cover, and how much money they’ll spend on it.

How can you support a change in your benefits without knowing what those benefits are?  Would you blindly buy a private insurance plan that way, or would you research the benefits, covered procedures, co-pays, and deductibles?

Oh, and by the way, it is not a public “option” plan.  Page 16 makes it very clear you will only get to keep your private insurance as it is written at the time HR 3200 goes into effect.  You will NEVER be allowed to change your coverage … EVER!  If you do, you will automatically default to the federal health plan, and you will never be allowed to leave it again.  Whether you want that plan or not.

The government will also decide if your private insurance (should you keep it) is adequate.  If it isn’t … the federal government will fine you annually on your taxes for the full average cost of a plan they deem adequate.  So you’ll pay for your insurance … then pay for insurance you should have had.  There is nothing in HR 3200 that says what private insurance plan would be sufficient to avoid the annual fine.  There is also nothing in HR 3200 to prevent the government from arbitrarily saying your plan is inadequate.  This leaves open the possibility of the government fining you repeatedly until you finally opt into the federal plan.  The bill has no protection against this.

With all of that said … why are we looking at a system similar to Britain, France, or Canada.  All have major, well documented flaws.  They also yield too much liberty to the government than most Americans are willing to give.

All three countries have problems with rationing care … the US doesn’t.  You can, and will, be treated in the emergency room any time you want, or need, treatment in the US.  A fact that gets ignored in this debate.  There is no denying that this method can bankrupt you, but so what … you’ll be alive.

The US also has a much higher survivability rate when you get sick than the other countries.  Especially for cancer.

Read the full report here.

This report here highlights in more detail the superior care Americans get compared to Canadians and Europeans.

It is a fact that we get better care when we are sick. That doesn’t mean they get bad care. After all, they do have access to modern medicine.

There’s also been a lot attributed to life expectancy in the US and those countries. Some attribute this to better preemptive care. Most in the medical field I’ve spoken with seem to understand that our lower life expectancy is more correlated to our way of life than preventive care. Especially since it is easier for an American to see a doctor while sick. We eat too much, drink too much, work too much, we sleep very little, take less vacation time, and don’t monitor our diet nearly as well as those countries. Americans also tend to be more thrill seeking than our counterparts.

In spite of all that, our life expectancy in this country just increased.  It increased because of a decline in death rates in almost all the leading causes of death according to the CDC … all without government help.  Oh yeah, life expectancy did the same thing in 2005 in the US.

Since our health and life expectancy are consistently improving … why change things?

Simply put … there are problems, and the system can be better.  Our government simply has chosen to not focus on those things, and instead opted to change everything.

Since Britain, France and Canada aren’t the best places to copy, according to the overwhelming amount of evidence, who is?

According to surveys of citizens in other countries, that I’ve Googled, about their health care … the Netherlands seems to beat everyone.  They have the highest percentage of population satisfied with their care, and the lowest percent who want a complete overhaul.

So what’s their system like?

Essentially, it’s private with a federal safety net.  I’ve heard a local talk show host here in Vegas, Casey Hendrickson, advocate a similar plan on his show.  Though he’s never mentioned the Netherlands, and his plan isn’t exactly like this.  I don’t know where he got his ideas from, but it got me thinking.

Source:

It is now mandatory for everyone to have at least a base level of insurance (basisverzekering) or run the risk of a warning and fines. However, you are free to choose your own health insurer (zorgvezekeraar) and change companies once a year.

A Dutch insurance company cannot refuse to cover for you for the basic package, regardless of your age or state of health. The standard basic package is pretty much the same from all providers except that costs may vary. If your income is under a fixed minimum level, you can apply for a healthcare allowance (zorgtoeslag) from the tax authorities (belastingdienst).

That’s just an overview. You can visit the link to get the coverage levels.

Right off the bat we have a system of health care in the Netherlands that would be far more accepted by Americans than what is being proposed now. Let’s look at that basic coverage everyone has to have.

Basic insurance
The basic insurance covers general medical care (visits to the huisarts, for example), hospital stays, dental care for up to age 22, prescription medicine, and various appliances. Costs start at approximately EUR 100 a month. The government keep tweaking this package.

You will need extra cover for extensive dental treatment, physiotherapy or anything else the government considers to be your own responsibility, and it is in these additional areas where companies compete. You can change the extras each year.

In other words … you can’t be denied for basic coverage, and it all costs about the same. If you want extra coverage … the free market is available for you to shop around. There’s also ways for you to tweak your deductible in favor of lower premiums.

There are some problems with the Dutch system though. You are limited in who you can choose as a doctor. They must be nearby. So you can’t visit a doctor if their office is not within 10 minutes of your home. You can choose any doctor in your area, but you are limited to that area. The same is true of a pharmacy which could be problem if you need a prescription, and you are at work or on vacation.

Overall though … it would be pretty acceptable to most Americans, and would likely sail through Congress.  It also eliminates the three primary complaints in the US:

• Can’t get covered because of preexisting conditions
• Insurer drops coverage when sick due to costs
• Cost of prescription drugs

The other complaint about health care in the US is that it is not affordable. That’s bularky, and everyone knows it. How many people claim health insurance is not affordable, but have credit card, or car payments? They didn’t make insurance a priority. Another idea I got from Mr. Hendrickson by the way.

The Dutch system would force you to budget for insurance first so you wouldn’t have the option of buying gadgets and trinkets before insurance. Tah da! Insurance is now affordable!

Ok, so the Dutch system is pretty good, but is there a system that’s better?

How about Singapore’s health care system?

Right about now, some of you are stunned. Who the hell talks about Singapore during a heath care debate? Hear me out before you make your mind up. Americans will love this system.

First, you should know that Singapore’s health system was ranked first in an international comparison study. The World Health Organization ranked it 6th. So why haven’t you heard about it? Good question.

Singapore spends a third of what the US does on health care (GDP), but has better health indicators. Which may still have to do with lifestyle in the US vs Singapore.

So what’s their system like?

Source:

There are mandatory health savings accounts: “Individuals pre-save for medical expenses through mandatory deductions from their paychecks and employer contributions… Only approved categories of medical treatment can be paid for by deducting one’s Medisave account, for oneself, grandparents, parents, spouse or children: consultations with private practitioners for minor ailments must be paid from out-of-pocket cash…”

“The private healthcare system competes with the public healthcare, which helps contain prices in both directions. Private medical insurance is also available.”

Private healthcare providers are required to publish price lists to encourage comparison shopping.

The government pays for “basic healthcare services… subject to tight expenditure control.” Bottom line: The government pays 80% of “basic public healthcare services.”

Government plays a big role with contagious disease, and adds some paternalism on top: “Preventing diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tobacco-related illnesses by ensuring good health conditions takes a high priority.”

The government provides optional low-cost catatrophic health insurance, plus a safety net “subject to stringent means-testing.”

Almost all care is subject to significant co-pays.

For those of you who haven’t read HR 3200 you probably think this sounds a lot like what the Democrats are proposing.  You’re wrong.

Their system is an actual partnership between public and private insurance.  The government mandates that you have a health savings account so you can pay your co-pay, and deductible.  Since there is actual cash being used to pay bills, the doctors don’t have to increase rates to cover those who haven’t paid.  The HSA funds are tax free as long as used for medical purposes.

You can also get private insurance to have access to better benefits than provided by the government, and go to private hospitals which are more comfortable from what I’ve read.  However, you can get low cost catostrophic insurance from the government as a backup plan in case you come down with a serious illness.

The government insurance is strictly regulated, and funded.  If there is no money left over … you’re S.O.L.  Good thing they mandate you have a HSA huh?

Basically, the government of Singapore requires you to save for you medical bills (like the US does for retirement), and encourages you to use the private sector for insurance because the government doesn’t cover everything.  However, they provide a catastrophic safety net for their citizens.

It should be noted that Singapore’s system is said to be a “very difficult system to replicate in many other countries” by Watson Wyatt (a global consulting firm).

While Singapore’s system would likely face more resistance than the Netherlands model … it would be more accepted by Americans than HR 3200.

Since neither system is perfect, but both address the few flaws the current US system has, why not create a hybrid?

1 Million Brits Abused By Health Care

Remember the British woman that was turned away from the hospital while in labor twice, or that nearly half of Britain’s maternity units turned women away while in labor, or that 4000 British women were forced to give birth in hallways or toilets because they were turned away?

I could go on, but you get the point.

Now a report has been released in Britain showing that 1 million patients received “cruel and neglectful” care.

The Patients Association said the dossier proves that while the scale of the scandal at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust – where up to 1,200 people died through failings in urgent care – was a one off, there are repeated examples they have uncovered of the same appalling standards throughout the NHS.

While the criticisms cover all aspects of hospital care, the treatment and attitude of nurses stands out as a repeated theme across almost all of the cases.

Just ignore that 1,200 people dying because of substandard care bit. Move along now.

The Patients Association said one hospital had threatened it with legal action if it chose to publish the material.

Pamela Goddard, a piano teacher from Bletchingley, in Surrey, was 82 and suffering with cancer but was left in her own excrement and her condition deteriorated due to her bed sores.

Florence Weston, from Sedgley in the West Midlands, died aged 85 and had to remain without food or water for several days as her hip operation was repeated cancelled.

It should be noted that, like in this country, this organization has no proof it was a million patients. They are extrapolating the evidence they have, and applying it to the whole population. There’s a very real chance they are wrong.

One of the British officials critical of this report said it highlighted only 2% of people who thought their care was unacceptable. I have been unable to find a poll not conducted by the British government who duplicates that number. Like the US and Canada, Britain seems to have roughly 50% of the population who is happy.

If we all have roughly the same number of people satisfied with their health care … why change?

Is This It? Is Obamacare Dead?

All it takes is a little effort by citizens and for congressional representatives to actually read the legislation they are supposed to vote on. Suddenly, everyone gets a little nervous.

Fox:

Momentum behind a new government-run health care plan appeared to slow considerably Sunday, as a lead Democratic negotiator called the option a “wasted effort” and President Obama’s health secretary suggested the White House is ready to accept a health care reform package without it.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., one of six negotiators trying to hammer out a bipartisan compromise measure on the Senate Finance Committee, told “FOX News Sunday” that the so-called public option simply does not have the votes to pass.

“The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option. There never have been,” he said. “So to continue to chase that rabbit I think is just a wasted effort.”

I don’t know about in other communities, but here in Vegas we have a couple of local talk show hosts who’ve been all over this before anyone else. For a couple months now Heather Kydd and Casey Hendrickson have been going over the provisions in the bill, and offering free copies of the bill to their listeners so they can read it themselves. They were the first I heard actually read the bill, and pick it apart.

Truth is there are three types of people involved in the health care debate right now. There are those that say anything would be better than what we have … they have no clue what’s going on. That’s an age old statement made by people who lack a substantive argument so they issue a broad, nonsensical statement.

Then there are those who simply attack any type of reform with insults, anger, and conspiracy theory. These are the few that are giving townhallers a bad name by being belligerent, and refusing to listen to anything. Some of the anger is justified when you have a politician lying to you, but they should be respectful towards their fellow citizens who support the health care bill. After all, if someone supports it … chances are they haven’t read it.

Finally, there’s the rest of us. Most people identify that there needs to be some reforms to the current system. However, you don’t destroy the who system when most people are happy with it, and you are just trying to provide coverage for less than 1% of the US population that needs insurance but doesn’t have it. Yes, we are only talking about less than 1% of people that can’t get insurance right now who want it. You don’t destroy a whole system for such a small segment of the population. You make reforms to help that segment. Logical people understand this.

We also understand that allowing the government to decide at the end of the year if we had proper health coverage is very dangerous. Especially when we will be fined for not having what the government deems proper coverage. They haven’t told us what would be considered proper yet.

This bill did nothing but establish penalties for us and private businesses based on arbitrary government requirements that have yet to be established. It also simply provided the government with the authority to set standards in the future. Which is why those who support it usually haven’t read it. It doesn’t tell anyone what coverage or benefits you’ll get … how can you support a bill that does little but advocate government penalties on you?

This never was about reform. It was only about an unconstitutional power grab. If they wanted to fix the problems with health care in this country … they could have. For much cheaper, and with little opposition. They didn’t choose that route.

Shock! NY Times Poll On Universal Health Care Stacked With Obama Voters

In a not-so-stunning development, we have learned that a CBS/NY Times poll showing 72% support for Obama’s health care plan was blatantly biased.

Just like every other CBS/NY Times poll … I know.

clipped from www.cnsnews.com Similarly, the Times/CBS poll said 48 percent of respondents had voted for Obama, versus 25 percent for McCain, a nearly two-to-one advantage for Obama supporters. Had those results been reflected in the November presidential election, Obama would have garnered 66 percent of the vote to McCain’s 34 percent, Conway, president & CEO of “the polling company,” told CNSNews.com. “Was the vote 66-34? You tell me,” Conway said. In 2008, Obama won 53 percent of the vote, McCain won 46 percent.

Related articles by Zemanta

• NY Times/CBS News Poll: Wide Support For Government-Run Option Competing With Private Insurers (huffingtonpost.com)
• Democrats worry health plan lacks votes (msnbc.msn.com)
• Obama may need firmer hand on health care (msnbc.msn.com)

Even The American Medical Association Is Opposed To Obama Care

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

So, finally the largest medical organization in the country is coming out and telling Obama to back off.