FIXING HEALTH CARE

The answer to the health debacle created by Obama, Pelosi and their minions is: expand Medicaid, expand Medicare and provide a minimum level of guidance to the private sector to create useful health insurance plans. The rest will work itself out. A close read of Obamacare's original legislation displays with certainty it was more about the redistribution of wealth than improving Americans' health care. Mark Davis author of Obamacare Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster.

Do Republicans really vote against their constituents’ interests?

Commentary by James Shott

It is not news – not even fake news – that the political Right and the political Left do not see things the same way; they are different, just as men and women are. The Left frequently sees things as problems that the Right does not regard as problems, and vice versa. And even when the two sides agree that something is a problem, they have different ways of addressing it. The gulf between the two factions is wider today than ever before.

The idea that Republican voters sometimes/often vote against their own interests is a Democrat talking point, and was the subject of a New York Times podcast that was discussed in a National Review online article by senior writer David French recently. The podcast host, Times managing editor Michael Barbaro, interviewed domestic-affairs correspondent Sheryl Gay Stolberg, who cited the situation in the state of Kentucky, one of the states that suffered mightily when the War on Coal put enough people out of work to run Kentucky’s coal jobs to their lowest level in 118 years.

The out-of-work miners, forced onto Medicaid by the War on Coal, benefited greatly from Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, Stolberg said, “yet, its Republican senators are leading the charge for Obamacare repeal, including for Medicaid reform. How can that be?”

The answer to that question comes from the different ways of looking at the world and at life from opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Which of the following sets of ideas do you most closely observe?

1. The nuclear family is an antique idea, traditional ideas of morality and culture are holding us back, sexual autonomy is a virtue, and we just can’t get by without government “help.”

2. First, we graduate from high school, get a job to sustain ourselves, get married, and then have children and raise a family.

If you chose 1, you likely lean toward the political Left; if you chose 2, you likely lean toward the political Right. These different views of how to live our lives define why Republicans vote against what seem to be their interests.

“Now, between the two parties, which one has centered its appeal around married parents with kids and which party has doubled down on single moms,” French asks? “Even worse, the Democrats’ far-left base has intentionally attacked the nuclear family as archaic and patriarchal. It has celebrated sexual autonomy as a cardinal virtue. Then, when faced with the fractured families that result, it says, ‘Here, let the government help,’” he writes.

How does this relate to Kentucky’s Republican Senators? They are voting on their ideas of what makes America great, and according to French, those interests “depend on the complex interplay between our faith, our families, and our communities.” It’s all about core values.

New York Times columnist David Brooks traces these values back to American frontier towns, where life was “fragile, perilous, lonely and remorseless,” where a “single slip could produce disaster,” and as a result the frontier folk learned to practice “self-restraint, temperance, self-control and strictness of conscience.”

Those values are at the heart of the American experience of carving a powerful and free republic out of a wilderness, a nation that has as a result led the world for decades. They reflect the Biblical values brought here and cultivated during America’s first turbulent and troubled decades, and which formed the basis of the government created following the “Colexit” of the Colonies from Mother England’s repressive grasp.

Republicans, or at least those who are true conservatives, honor the ideals of freedom, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and limited government, and to a less-than-perfect degree – but a far-greater degree than those who call themselves liberals, progressives, or socialists – try to live by these values.

Kentucky’s Republican Senators dislike the government’s solution to the problem that the government itself created when it over-regulated nearly everything, and so they see a vote against maintaining this absurdity as a virtuous one. They prefer a system freeing Americans to make their own decisions about healthcare and health insurance without the one-size-fits-nobody concept that the Democrats created that we commonly call Obamacare.

Their vote seemingly punishes those they should most want to help: their constituents and supporters. But the bigger picture shows instead the desire to free their constituents from the damaging big government policies that put them on the government dole. The want to create an environment where they can find another job that can sustain them above the poverty line, and off of Medicaid.

Republicans want to do away with this Democrat-created problem. Their fundamental goal is to free Americans from this horrible, failed big government mechanism. Its aim was to ultimately create a single-payer, totally government-controlled healthcare system that would mirror the British system. You know the one: it recently took control of decisions on seriously ill infant Charlie Gard’s care away from his parents, and effectively ordered the Charlie’s death.

That case demonstrates precisely how government-run healthcare can, and likely will, degenerate into a system where government makes decisions about who lives and dies. And that explains why Republicans seem to vote against their constituents’ interests.

SUICIDE POLITICS: SUPPORTING THE UNSUPPORTABLE

Suicide Politics: Supporting the Unsupportable

Juggling numbers to validate a point in a discussion is nothing new to those on the left. Obamacare was passed into existence with lies and persists by the same methodology. Claiming millions would be hurt when Obamacare’s claws are finally removed from the health system is nonsense. Many who moved over to Obamacare were members of the Medicaid set originally and as a point of reference this charitable benefit still exists. Whether 15 or 20 million will lose health care coverage via Obamacare’s demise is irrelevant. This group has government programs to help them. Left out of the equation are 200 million people whose private health insurance costs moved into the stratosphere because a very bad piece of legislation was signed into law in March of 2010. Political dynamos want to substitute another piece of trash legislation in its place. Gladly it failed on the first go around.

Slowly filtered out of the dark corridors of Congress were bits and pieces of another potential health care disaster. Intraparty politics amongst the Republicans doomed health care reform before President Trump took office. Sub legislative caucuses each wanted their own version of reform to pass. With no clear consensus political leaders failed to convince sufficient numbers to side with the pending disaster placed before them. Therefore a vote, for now, has been tabled until party unity is achieved and hence a viable health initiative can be formulated.

Omitted from the debate is the human element. Under the canopy of health care reform politicians have forgotten the medical personnel and patient population affected by their twisted legislative proposals.  The whole purpose of this legal exercise is to bring health costs down not elevate personal egos. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, has shown he is an ineffective leader yet he will not vacate his position to someone with foresight and marketing skills. Moving legislation forwards requires certain aptitudes not displayed by Ryan. Since Gingrich is not available perhaps someone of equal talents will step forward.

President Trump was a CEO of a major corporation. His ability to get the job done was not a problem because one mind established policies and the rest followed suit. In Washington Trump must contend with 538 people who have a stake in each piece of legislation and its final outcome. Welcome to Washington D.C. where gridlock will affect the best of intentions, as President Trump has displayed. No one could have predicted the President’s own political party would be the obstructionists, yet they are. Many of these depleted minds must confront their electorate base back home and they are mad. Lindsey Graham’s recent Town Hall discussion exemplifies the hostilities awaiting many others when they attempt to explain the failure to repeal Obamacare.

A string of career suicides will follow for neglecting to keep campaign promises. My perspective is Trump will go directly to the American public and point out who blocked health care reform on his side of the aisle. The delay in repeal and replace Obamacare will be indelibly marked on the electorate’s mind. Yet I believe President Trump will not be hurt by this failure because he will make sure people know he gave it his best.  

Mark Davis, MD

Author of Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster

Manager of bestproofreadingeditingbookreviews.com

platomd@gmail.com

Thoughts on the Supreme Court: Same-sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act

Commentary by James Shott

Following the American Revolution when the new nation realized it needed a new controlling document, it replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution, under which the states had significant independence from the federal government. The new government had a brilliant and unique design that included three co-equal branches, each with its own specific duties, limited authority and a system of checks and balances so that no one branch could become dictatorial.

Mentioned first, the Legislative Branch is the rule-maker, the single branch authorized to make laws. Next, the Executive Branch is charged with administering and enforcing the laws that Congress passes; and the Judicial Branch was to be the referee that made sure that the actions of the Legislative and Executive Branches comported with the dictates of the Constitution, as Alexander Hamilton said, to determine whether laws passed by the legislature were consistent with the fundamental and superior law of the Constitution. And Chief Justice John Marshall, in weighing the validity of a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789, declared “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Today we see that the Judiciary has become politicized, putting Constitutional concerns on the back burner, as demonstrated by two decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court last week.

First, the Court turned plain language and constitutional law on its head, for the second time, to deny challenges to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). And then it redefined what marriage has been for centuries.

The purpose here is not to argue against same-sex marriage or against whatever few good things may have resulted from the ACA, but to argue for proper judicial behavior in regard to interpreting Congressional acts.

Contrary to the popular notion that the Constitution is a “living document,” the meaning of which changes in response to the prevailing winds of popular societal notions, the Constitution set forth principles envisioned by the Framers as valid for the ages, and which ought to be interpreted as such. Otherwise, what means one thing in 1795 could mean something totally opposite in 1895, and then completely different from either meaning in 1995; the law being blown about on an ever-changing sea.

In the first case last week, Chief Justice John Roberts, voting with the majority, opined: “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax.” Had he not redefined a “penalty” as a “tax,” the ACA would have overstepped its power in regulating interstate commerce. Last week, the Chief Justice again voted to correct flaws in the law by deciding that words don’t really mean what we thought they meant, saving the law’s constitutionality for a second time.

In his scathing dissent of that most recent ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it [actually] means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.” “Words no longer have meaning,’” he wrote.

Further, the Constitution does not provide for the Supreme Court to correct errors in Congressional acts so that they pass constitutional muster. Congress must fix its own mistakes.

Chief Justice Roberts is thought to have been more concerned with trying to protect the Court’s reputation by not overturning a piece of popular legislation, rather than observing his duty to uphold constitutional law.

And last week the Court also voted to redefine what marriage is, with Justice Roberts returning to proper judicial conservatism, voting with the minority this time.

Nothing in the Constitution requires or allows the Supreme Court to redefine marriage. Marriage is a social/cultural construction that has stabilized the family as a bulwark social institution for thousands of years. The court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people through their elected state representatives, as provided for by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. The definition of marriage had already been broadened by 34 states, which is proper. If some states decide not to change that definition, so be it.

Chief Justice Roberts, who twice abandoned constitutional requirements in finding the ACA to be legal, noted the following in dissent about the same-sex marriage ruling: “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

The Chief Justice properly noted the absence of constitutional authority in the same-sex marriage case, but somehow did not understand that the separation of powers prevents the Court from repairing the work of the Congress, which behaved horribly in creating the Affordable Care Act.

If the people can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to objectively evaluate acts of Congress and the Executive, we are doomed.

Cross-posted from Observations

Commentary by James Shott

Policy problems, legal challenges, failures to make progress on important international issues, being abandoned by Congressional Democrats on an important legislative measure, President Barack Obama’s recent problems mount daily, it seems.

He told the graduating class at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy: “And this brings me to the challenge I want to focus on today – one where our Coast Guardsmen are already on the front lines, and that, perhaps more than any other, will shape your entire careers – and that’s the urgent need to combat and adapt to climate change.” Not the importance of guarding the shoreline and responding to emergencies and other events there. No, the threat he chose to include in his address was climate change, that much-debated theory that is losing credibility even faster than Mr. Obama is accumulating problems.

Last August, Mr. Obama said his administration was still devising a way to fight ISIS, and last week at the G7 conference in Germany he said, “We don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis." After ten months with little or no progress on an Iraq policy, one may legitimately wonder whether Mr. Obama is really serious about, or prepared to adequately address this problem. Remember he called ISIS the “JV team.” And more recently the Pentagon claimed that ISIS “is no longer the dominant force in roughly 25 to 30 percent of the populated areas of Iraqi territory where it once had complete freedom of movement.” However, that statement has been shown to be “misleading and incomplete,” according to Raymond Ibrahim, writing in Human Events.

The Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as Obamacare, did succeed in bringing down the rate of uninsured Americans to the lowest levels so far, but continues to show major weaknesses that challenge its positive accomplishment.

Among those weaknesses, as reported in the Washington Free Beacon, are that many Americans still cannot afford health coverage and are delaying medical treatment; that despite Mr. Obama’s promises that “if you like your plan you can keep your plan,” more than five million people in 35 states have lost their health insurance plans; and that Obamacare will add up to $1 trillion in new taxes. Further, the law strengthens government control over healthcare, thus weakening the control of doctors over their practices and of patients over their healthcare, and the law also is reducing choices for patients.

And now a legal challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court may deal a serious blow to the Affordable Care Act. The Court is expected to announce its decision later this month in the King v. Burwell lawsuit, challenging the legality of the government to give tax credits to health insurers in more than thirty states that use the federal health insurance exchange. Should the Court rule for King, Obamacare policies in those states would become unaffordable, and would relieve more than 11 million people of the individual mandate.

Mr. Obama, perhaps having been tipped off by a Court insider that the Justices likely will rule against the administration, has taken to criticizing and chastising the Court for considering a lawsuit against the Obamacare. Some have interpreted his comments as trying to intimidate the Court.

"Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” he said at the G7 meeting. “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step."

Perhaps the president needs a refresher course in American government. The Judicial Branch, led by the Supreme Court, is a co-equal branch of our government with the Executive and the Legislative Branches; none of them is subservient to either of the other two. This separation of powers is expressly designed to prevent any single branch from becoming dictatorial, which likely is Mr. Obama’s reason for complaint.

Judicial review, which is to rule on the constitutionality of legislative and executive acts, is a legitimate function of the Supreme Court, and judicial activism is lawmaking by the courts, which is not a legitimate function. Judicial activism is a primary tool of the political left, seeking to change the constitutional order of things.

Not content merely to take over the health care system, drag his feet on the Iraq and Iran situations, and intimidate the Supreme Court, Mr. Obama now proposes to inject the federal government into influencing or controlling who lives where in the United States, with a plan to diversify neighborhoods.

To be administered through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, critics say it will force municipalities to change their zoning policies, while supporters say it is an effort “to create opportunity for all.”

Whichever it is, it is not the job of the President of the United States.

Cross-posted from Observations.

Liberal legislation continues to disrupt our healthcare system

By the time you read this the physician reimbursement crisis may have been averted, yet again. But if not, doctors who still treat Medicare and Medicaid patients will see a reduction of 21.2 percent for Medicare patients and as much as 42.8 percent for Medicaid patients for services rendered on or before March 31, unless Congress enacts another “doc fix” before April 1

If the “doc fix” hasn’t yet been approved and isn’t approved today, both Medicare and Medicaid patients may have a far more difficult time getting medical care. And if it is fixed this time, what will happen when this fix expires?

This is yet another of the blessings of Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, enacted in 2010, and through tortured legal reasoning was ruled constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Obamacare is not the first government action to reduce reimbursements for Medicare and Medicaid patients, but because Obamacare put millions more people in the Medicaid system in order to increase the number of Americans who could then be counted as “insured,” it gets credit for the current crisis. And to keep down vocal physician opposition to adding millions more to an already broken system, Congressional Democrats who created Obamacare included a two-year increase in reimbursement rates that are now set to expire April 1, and that means the lower reimbursement rates will be back, if the “doc fix” isn’t passed.

Doctors generally get paid less for Medicaid and Medicare patients than their cost basis in treating them, and situations like this one magnify that problem. Consequently, some doctors limit the number of Medicaid and Medicare patients they see, and some do not treat them at all. Don’t be surprised if this situation causes more doctors to join those ranks every year until reimbursements for services to these patients are stabilized at a higher level so that doctors don’t lose money treating them.

On one hand we should support efforts to reign in absurdly high levels of government spending, which in 2014 was approximately 17 percent higher than revenue, meaning that for every dollar of tax revenue there’s 17 cents of deficit spending that the government has to borrow. But on the other hand, shortchanging physicians who treat America’s elderly and low-income or welfare-supported citizens is a foolish way to do that.

This is especially unfair to Medicare patients, who are not welfare recipients, and who, of all those who receive government benefits, are truly entitled to them. They receive essentially their own money, and that of their employers, both of whom had money taken from them by the government to fund Social Security, and later Medicare. These benefits are not the same as Medicaid, food stamps, child support and other welfare money.

The Social Security Act was passed in 1935 and is a promise government made to American workers and their employers that the money government took from them would be put in a trust fund and invested, and returned to them in their later years.

Predictably, the government then used that money for other purposes, not for the benefit of the people the Social Security Trust Fund exists to serve. The Trust Fund is now bankrupt, for all practicable purposes, being in the red approximately $300 billion.

And that raises the question: How is it possible that the Social Security Trust Fund, which was built by the monetary contributions of its recipients and their employers, can run out of money, but the “fund” that pays from $700 billion to $1 trillion annually for welfare in all its numerous forms, never runs out of money?

The “doc fix” that will help doctors who treat Medicare and Medicaid patients will also add to the deficit, and that obviously is bad. We need to spend less money, but we also need to not limit medical care to those who need it. The solution lies in repairing the Medicaid system, which provides care to millions, and many are perfectly capable of funding some or all of their own care. Welfare must be reserved for those who are truly needy and have no other solution.

And now, from centuries ago, here is a statement addressing the situation in which our once great nation now finds itself:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Whatever happened to integrity and honor in public service?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), Obamacare: the gift that keeps on giving … headaches, cramps, nausea, and economic insecurity. The list goes on.

From its unseemly beginnings as a one-party creation in smoky back rooms that passed a Congress dominated in both houses by Democrats, without being read and debated by anyone, with only Democrats voting for it and with few Americans supporting it, the ACA is a vast array of failings. 

It’s not an absolute and total failure; nothing is perfect. 

But nearly all of its promises were broken, as many had predicted: you most likely can’t keep your doctor or your insurance plan if you like them; you probably aren’t going to save $2,500 a year in premium payments; and if you see more choice, more competition, and lower costs in healthcare, you will be among an infinitesimally small minority to do so.

Jonathon Gruber has now told the world in a series of recently discovered videos how, in designing the ACA, Congressional Democrats and their staffs employed deception and opaqueness to sneak the law past the American public.

He is an MIT economics professor, the architect of the Massachusetts healthcare plan known as Romneycare that was the model for Obamacare, and who also helped the Democrats create their version of a national healthcare system that most Americans didn’t want. 

In a video from October of 2013 Dr. Gruber admits that a “lack of transparency” was a blessing for the Obama administration and congressional Democrats in passing the ACA. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” he said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

In another video, he said, “So it's written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed.” … “That was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he said. “But I’d rather have this law than not.”

In effect he was saying: “I’d rather not have mugged that old lady and stolen her groceries, but I’d rather have had food to eat than not.”

Efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) and President Obama to distance themselves from the good professor fell well short of the mark: videos, you know.

Of course, all of this under-handedness was for our own good, you know, and if we just weren’t so stupid they wouldn’t have had to deceive us to give us what they insist we need.

But, however, we aren’t all stupid. Some of us knew all along that this bill was a sham and the promises couldn’t be kept, and that at its base Obamacare really is nothing more than a system to control the people and a huge redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and unhealthy. 

And then there is Barack Obama, himself; President of the United States, leader of the free world, who not only made many promises for the ACA that didn’t come true (did he lie to the people, or just not know what he was talking about?), and over the years said twenty or more times that he can’t act alone on immigration. “That’s not how democracy works.” “That’s not how our Constitution is written.” “I can’t solve this problem by myself.” What he didn’t say, in so many words, is: “Unless I have to act alone because Congress won’t give me the bill that I want, and so I will just do whatever I please.”

And last week he did act alone to circumvent both Congress and the existing laws on immigration and illegal alien deportation to order ICE to ignore up to 5 million illegal aliens in the country, all the while falsely claiming he was doing nothing more than any other president in the last 50 years. Except that he was. The presidential acts alluded to were in response to Congressional action, not because of a lack thereof.

The process of writing and passing the ACA was one devoid of honesty and integrity. Mr. Obama’s issuing of an Executive Order countermanding existing laws on immigration because Congress won’t obey his “orders” is an exercise in petulance, arrogance and overstepping his Constitutional bounds.

Both of these situations reflect the idea that Congressional Democrats and the president think they know better than the people that elected them, and that they are paid to serve what is good for them and for the country, and they have yet again shown that they will do whatever is necessary to achieve their narrow goals, and legal and moral processes be damned. This the-ends-justify-the-means tactic reflects a level of arrogance and hubris that would make the Founders nauseous. 

Our Constitution lays out a framework for doing things in our government that worked very well until we started changing it. 

Allowing any president to unilaterally extend the power of the executive is dangerous and foolish. Every true American in Congress must oppose this.

The election of 2014 is over. What did we learn? Where do we go?

Last week’s mid-term election results surprised almost everyone in some way. Republicans won control of the US Senate, increased their majority in the House of Representatives by 13 seats, and won a number of other victories, as summarized here by The Washington Post:

• Net gain of 8 legislative chambers, increasing from 59 to 67 out of a total of 98 (Nebraska is technically unicameral, but it is dominated by Republicans as well).
• This sets a record for the modern era, breaking the one in 2012.
• Republicans now have total control of 24 states, controlling legislative chambers as well as the governor’s office.
• Republicans have supermajority status in 8 states.
• Control is split in 17 states (3 of whose governors flipped from Democrat to Republican).
• Republicans now have four lieutenant governorships due to defeating Democrat incumbents.
• Democrats have total control in 6 states.

Given the broad and deep defeat of Democrats across the nation it is apparent that the country disapproves of what liberal Democrats have been doing. Those who voted elected Republicans in big numbers, and those that didn’t vote made a strong statement of non-support for the radical policies of liberal Democrats.

A day after the election, President Barack Obama was defiant, showing no inkling that he understood that his policies and the direction he and his fellow liberals had set were to blame for what happened the previous day.

“What we’ve seen now for a number of cycles is that the American people just want to see work done here in Washington,” he said. “They’re frustrated by the gridlock. They’d like to see more cooperation, and I think all of us have a responsibility, me in particular, to try to make that happen.”

That sounds promising, but no more had he sounded the trumpet of cooperation than he committed to going around Congress with a plan to stop deportations and allow as many as 5 million illegal aliens to stay in the United States, at least temporarily. Given that he did nothing on immigration for the first six years of his tenure, except weaken border security, why is this so important now?

His position not only is a slap in the face of Congressional leaders, but also of the American people. Seventy-four percent of voters said in an exit poll by The Polling Company that President Obama should work with Congress rather than go around Congress on immigration.

The Polling Company results showed that "majorities of men (75 percent), women (74 percent), whites (79 percent), blacks (59 percent), and Hispanics (54 percent)," oppose an executive amnesty, and that opinion was shared by Republicans (92 percent) and Independents (80 percent), and even by a majority of Democrats (51 percent).

He is also on the wrong side of the Obamacare issue. The Real Clear Politics Average of polls conducted in October shows that nearly 52 percent of those polled are opposed to Obamacare, while only 38 percent favor it.

Nevertheless, "On healthcare, there are certainly some lines I'm going to draw," Mr. Obama said on Wednesday. "Repeal of the law I won't sign," and he will resist efforts to improve the bill, such as by getting rid of the individual mandate.

This election was certainly not a mandate for Congress and the president to work together to pass the same kinds of legislation that liberal Democrats favored before the election. The people want change.

The mission statement for the new Republican majority should be “First, do no harm.” That means no amnesty, and fix or repeal Obamacare, among other things.

The federal government is too big, too expensive, too intrusive; it is out of control and a danger to the freedom of the American people: Government must be reigned in. That is what the election meant.

Participants in a nationwide CBS News poll in late October were asked what was the most important issue that would affect their vote in the upcoming election. The stagnant economy topped the list at 38 percent.

To get the economy moving we have to cut tax rates across the board, both corporate and personal, which will put millions of dollars in the hands of people and businesses to spend as they see fit.

And then:

• Cut government spending. There’s more than enough waste in administrative agencies to “pay for” tax cuts.
• Repeal the tax on medical devices imposed by the Affordable Care Act that punishes companies developing needed technology.
• Approve the XL Pipeline, and both create jobs and help end dependence on foreign oil.
• Reign in the EPA, remove the shackles on domestic energy production. Defund it, if necessary.
• Secure the borders and stop the influx of illegals, drug cartels and other criminals from Mexico, and potential terrorists. Deport or jail the criminals among the illegals.
• Start restoring our military to its former strength, and try to reacquire those seasoned officers driven to retirement by the Obama administration.
• Restore selection of US Senators to state legislatures, as it was originally designed.

SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling sends the left into Never Never Land

Commentary by James Shott

The daunting effects on individual freedom of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are legion, despite the Herculean efforts of statist advocates and the agenda media to ignore them or explain them away. One element of the law that created a storm of opposition is the requirement that employers provide 20 different forms of contraception to their female employees who have company-provided health coverage.

That element of the ACA prompted a legal challenge from Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, two closely held for-profit businesses owned by people who oppose abortion on religious grounds, and challenged the requirement to provide free access to four of the twenty required items on the list that are regarded as “abortifacients,” or abortion-causing drugs.

The United States Supreme Court upheld that challenge by a narrow 5-4 majority, allowing the plaintiff companies to refuse to provide the offending drugs that interrupt the fetal development process after conception, and thus are abortifacients.

While relieving the two employers of the requirement to provide coverage forbidden by their religious beliefs, the ruling did not affect the requirement to provide 16 other contraceptive items.

Nevertheless, the businesses have been accused of waging a “War on Women.” And, the case has unleashed a flurry of ill considered, factually deficient, and inane comments from those who want to persuade others that there actually is a “War on Women.”

To wit: “It’s very troubling that a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception,” said Hillary Clinton last week.

There are several problems with this statement, not the least of which is that Ms. Clinton has no idea what she is talking about. Given the facts of the ruling, the assertion that the employer thinks people shouldn’t use contraception is plainly absurd. It is likely true that these business owners probably do think women should use contraceptives to avoid the “need” for abortions, which violate their religious beliefs. And, women may “want” contraceptives, but they don’t “need” them.

Social justice attorney and California State Senate candidate Sandra Fluke on MSNBC’s “Hardball”: “What this is really about at its base is trying to figure out as many ways as possible to limit women’s access to reproductive healthcare.” If you oppose 20 percent of required “contraceptives” – the challenged items aren’t really contraceptives at all – you are trying to limit women’s access to reproductive healthcare? Seriously?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the decision “an outrageous step against the rights of America’s women.”  Of course, not wanting to provide abortion drugs for women is tantamount to attacking all women’s rights.

Senator Patty Murray said it is “a dangerous precedent and takes us closer to a time in history when women had no choice and no voice.”  She apparently forgot that she, a woman, was elected to the US Senate, and that women have held and currently hold many high positions in government and the private sector.

Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said, “It is no surprise that Republicans have sided against women on this issue as they have consistently opposed a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions.” Has she discovered a Republican bill now being drafted to appoint male health agents to make healthcare decisions for all women?

Massachussetts Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted: “Can’t believe we live in a world where we’d even consider letting big [corporations] deny women access to basic care based on vague moral objections.” The First Amendment protection of religious beliefs is “vague”?

Perhaps the first reaction to comments like these is, “Do these people really believe what they are saying?” And then you realize that they either do or they don’t, and either possibility represents a serious problem. Worse, all of these people are in or are seeking positions of influence and power.

How about the idea that women somehow have a right to contraception, as well as the right for it to be paid for by their employer? A quick search of the Bill of Rights, however, found no such guarantee. But there is a very prominent guarantee of religious liberty, the right to believe as one chooses, a belief that is free from control by and interference from government.

But in today’s upside-down America, business owners who honor their religious beliefs opposing abortion are called “enemies of women.” These businesses hire women, Hobby Lobby started all employees at $13 an hour before the ruling, they probably have women in management positions, may have women owners, make health insurance available to all employees, and somehow this means they are waging a “War on Women.”

But since facts and truth are not on their side, deceit and exaggeration are all they’ve got to work with, and these pathetic women are doing their best to create another class of victims to collect government largess.

But be forewarned: If you disagree with any aspect of a “progressive” cause, no matter how ridiculous that cause is, or how tiny your disagreement, you will be labeled a “woman-hater,” a “racist,” or something equally horrible.

Cross-posted from Observations

What is a physician

What is a Physician

 

Physicians are a group of people who dedicate themselves to care for the injured, diseased and or those in the transitions of life. Revered by most cultures these healers partake in prolonged, extensive and grueling training to be called the title they become. Major shifts in technology, pharmaceutical sciences and government intervention have metamorphosed the role expected of medical doctors. In recent times physicians moved from managing a patient’s problem to being managed themselves. Fear of sanction and loss of income from a variety of sources has turned this profession into a mere utility controlled by a massive bureaucracy. As a result the glamour and prestige of the practitioner has evaporated leaving vestiges of a career many sought yet few could obtain. Preparation takes a minimum of 11 years before one can enter the realm of practice. In some specialties 14 years or more are required before the student is able to rise above that title. When let loose on society the newly minted physician must face an array of challenges not considered on the very first day of medical school. Medical boards, with twisted agendas, to keep the newly stamped licensee in line will bring much sorry to those who transgress these politically motivated administrative authorities. Lawyers will target them indiscriminately to move up the food chain leaving an indelible mark during the process. Long hours, extreme patient demands, onerous regulatory structure and a system at war with the practitioner await those who dare step into the medical arena. In 2014 it is projected that 300 physicians will commit suicide. Depression, driven by factors enumerated in this text, has brought these physicians to the brink. Thousands of physicians have bailed on the profession to safer harbors, more will follow as Obamacare is fully implemented. With the incipience of the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act, in March of 2010, physicians and other health care workers became indentured servants to a massive body of regulations that re-fabricated the medical industry. To answer ‘what is a physician’ one must review the transitions now occurring throughout the system. This person is a shadow of his colleagues from decades past who lost individuality to groupthink and is a puppet of his taskmasters.

 

Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services and Davis Book Reviews.

www.healthnetsreviewservices.com platomd@gmail.com

Dr. Davis’ latest book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster.

Obamacare: A Prescription for Job Loss

Obamacare: A Prescription for Job Loss

By Mark Davis, MD

 

Democracy took a wrong turn when the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as Obamacare, came online in March of 2010.  Few had read this voluminous document prior to its passage, even fewer understood the pain it would inflict soon after.  By virtue of this law’s intricate algorithms failure could be its only final outcome. As time moved on from its passage into law a new array of taxes and levies were brought to bear on businesses, insurance companies and those affected by the changes in both. Companies with fifty or more employees were mandated to provide health insurance to their employees. Through a convoluted formula certain levels of health coverage were required to be met or the wrath of the IRS would soon be felt. More revealing businesses would be able to circumvent this mandate if hours of their workers were reduced below thirty per week. With the swipe of a pen the private sector had their balance sheets usurped by government entities under the guise of a health care umbrella.

 

In preparation for the oncoming fiscal tidal wave a multiplicity of businesses began paring back there non-salaried workers hours to less than 30. This action would place these employees under the threshold requirement to provide health coverage. Regal Cinemas sent a memo to its staff, early in 2013, with a blatant message noting their change in hours were directly due to the health insurance provisions of Obamacare. Many managers resigned others simply worked with the schedule provided by Regal Corporate.  From Pizza chains to wholesale outlets innumerable employees were experiencing the consequences from a legislation that never should have been enacted into law. Contrary to the positive face government officials place on PPACA, its insidious affects are making their way throughout the business community. Employees in minimum wage jobs will be especially hard hit. How many people will ultimately lose their jobs has been sketched out by another bureaucracy.

 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was established as a federal agency within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of government. Its noble mission statement required this administrative entity to be objective, nonpartisan and timely with its economic forecasts. Recent history displays these goals have come into question concerning Obamacare. Their projections indicate over 2 million full time  job equivalents will be lost in the next few years as a direct result of the progressives overreach into health care. Transparency is not this agency’s strong point. Calculation of these job losses may not take into consideration the gamut of new taxes forced on the business world. Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment, announced in the latter part of 2012 it would lay-off 10% of its workforce over a three year period, in response to the pending medical device tax it would confront in the near future. Dana Holding Corporation, Stryker, Boston Scientific, Metronics and many others cite this same tax for the expansive layoffs they plan. Could the CBO be underestimating the workforce reductions as they underestimated the costs of PPACA?  Omens suggest the CBO’s predictions are baseless and more bad news is coming.

 

Democrat leaders in both houses of Congress continue to spin Obamacare as America’s destiny, the numbers reveal the antithesis.  Job creation has been very sluggish over the last several years as the tentacles of this leviathan intersperse throughout the business community. Unable to plan for the future, many companies are sitting on the sidelines waiting for the next twist or turn in a law which has obstructed their ability to expand. Unemployment statistics do not reflect the tens of millions who have curtailed searching for work.  Reports from the franchise industry provide an indication of the problems created by this legislation. With the imposition of penalties on businesses not offering health insurance and or appropriate coverage, as defined by Obamacare, many medium to large concerns are not hiring or worse they are moving ahead with layoffs. The hospitality, restaurant and leisure industries, especially those who employ more than fifty people, see bleak futures ahead. They require many hands to be successful, yet work on a very fine profit margin. A future full of red ink is the collective realization of many who have read the proverbial writing on the wall which our legislators refuse acknowledge.

 

Unions, once major supporters of President Obama’s health fiasco, now feel exploited. Health insurance premiums for their members have seen exponential increases. Promised subsidies have not materialized. Worse coverage has changed to the detriment of millions under union contracts. Low salaried workers could be forced off their plans onto insurance exchanges providing less coverage than they have now or worse lose their jobs. Union bosses have made their feelings clearly known to Obama who so far has been mute to their complaints. Why? Because he no longer needs their support, therefore he has thrown them under the literal bus as he has done to the rest of the country. 

 

Obamacare is a prescription for job loss, no doubt. Constructed around a core of ideas to control all segments of the economy, health care delivery was the least concern of its architects. Enmeshed within its draconian structure are the ingredients to tilt bottom lines towards red ink, potentially placing at risk millions of jobs. Oblivious to these facts the President believes his legacy legislation is the best thing since the invention of the wheel without recognizing the true cost to the nation, its soul.

 

Mark Davis MD is an author, journalist and media consultant. Dr. Davis is President of Healthnets Review Services and Davis Book Reviews. His latest book is Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster. For consults, interviews and seminars please contact him at the following email: platomd@gmail.com or his company www.healthnetsreviewservices.com

America's health system: will it survive under Obamacare

America’s health system: will it survive under Obamacare

Mark Davis, M.D.

 

     America’s system of health care delivery is one of the best in the World. Tens of millions seek medical services yearly, most of whom are successfully treated for their ills. Yet a small percentage of this group fails to achieve a similar success story. Consequently, a harsh reality encumbers a segment of society in their search for the healing process. This failure is the substance of an indictment brought to bear by an overreaching government that seeks equity in a system that in the end is an unrealistic goal. Present day medical services offer an array of choices from basic care to sophisticated diagnostics and therapeutics. Costs associated with these variant levels of care move along a similar spectrum with the latter end out of reach except for the wealthiest amongst us. Present population demographics indicate the nation’s inhabitants number more than 317 million. In order to manage the medical services for this vast number of people 900 thousand physicians are licensed to perform the task. Of this group approximately 80% perform direct patient services. The rest are embedded in administrative roles through government entities or private functions. Nearly three million nurses, nurse practitioners and physicians assistants supplement the services of their physician colleagues. Day to day medical miracles are performed in 5,800 registered hospitals, thousands of clinics, innumerable physicians’ offices and a variety of other health outlets that complete the circle of this expansive system. During the early days of the 111^th Congress the Democrat majority, in both houses, quietly began the foundations of a piece of legislation we now know as Obamacare. As it was nearing completion in 2010 a heightened level of negative rhetoric was heard against the prevailing system. Insurance companies, the pharmaceutical and health industries found themselves harshly demonized by a government which was planning to literally nationalize the medical system. On March 23^rd 2010 a several thousand page legislative effort, written end to end by lawyers and passed by both houses of Congress on the slimmest of margins, was signed into law. With the swipe of a pen one sixth of the U.S. economy and  control of America’s health system was usurped by  federal bureaucrats who forgot one small point, no one knew its contents.

 

     Designated as a cure-all for the ills of a system that had a minor cold the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act (PPACA) may be a historic first. Nearly every voting member in the House of Representatives and its Senatorial counterpart were ill-knowledgeable of the Trojan horse they had passed into law. Several thousand pages of legislative confusion was about to be inflicted on a nation whose greatest majority were already covered by health plans. Promises of eternal access to high quality medical care with cost affordability in mind were splashed throughout receptive media channels in an effort to convince Americans a new day has dawned in American health care. Pre-existing condition coverage was an absolute within the structure of the legislation. All this and more without increasing the federal budget was the fantasy repeated over and over again by Obama’s friends in the media. Then a few people began to look under the hood of this new health vehicle and found something else. Written in legalese its authors deliberately confounded the wording making it difficult if not impossible to decipher. Those who were able to break the code found there were more sanctions and penalties than health initiatives in this disturbing law. Few initiated in health care management had contributed to this expansive edict which was designed to eventually place every aspect of medical services under the watchful eye of Uncle Sam. Left out of the conversation was the fact that traditional insurance was less expensive, offered more services and allowed better access to the health system. Those who led the charge to pass PPACA were unavailable for comment during the early days of the law’s incipience. They were vacationing in Antarctica. Nevertheless reality has a way of surfacing and the more people knew about Obamacare the less affinity they had for it.

 

     Media friendly to the Obama Administration brought in their usual list of hacks to bless this new burden on our society. Politicians, economists, Harvard professorial consultants and other faces you have seen many times were among them. This crowd read from the same talking points noting how the left’s pinnacle achievement would save America from its unfair and decaying medical system. Referencing a few key elements their diatribes were almost believable. Yet scratching the surface of Obamacare’s cheer leadership a pervasive credibility gap opened which still defines the hazards of this legislation. Promising to bring tens of millions into the fold, who had a paucity of health services in the past, these spokesmen for the Administration could not quite explain the machinery to bring this about. Analyzing the Romneycare experiment in Massachusetts, a program that influenced PPACA legislation, a cold chill comes over the reader as he sees the parallels between the two laws. Increased demand for services in the Bay State taxed the medical infrastructure to a point causing many physicians to close their practices to new patients. Prices of services rose through the natural progression of cost inflation, yet government officials blocked many requests for elevation of fees. Massachusetts government officials artificially kept reimbursements low by denying legitimate requests for increases. Inundated with lawsuits over their micro-version of Obamacare, Massachusetts elevated many lawyers to the level of administrative judgeships then quickly dispensed with these cases.  The fix was in, similar to the courts for Obamacare. Autocratic methodologies, convoluted judicial opinions and heavy financial penalties are the fulcrums used to squash any resistance to a health plan few desired and less were willing to pay for. Romney jumped ship before his legacy plan was implemented. Do you blame him?

 

     Students of Romneycare see the obvious parallels between the poorly designed national plan and the Bay State’s experiment. In both cases a heavy reliance on the legal system has been introduced to enforce these two tragedies on less than receptive audiences. For lawyers and judges Obamacare is a legal fantasyland given to them as payback for supporting the President. Tentacles of this leviathan reach into every aspect of our society. When compliance is questionable the briefcase crowd along with their black robed friends will be called in to save the day. Tort reform was deliberately left out of this beast. Instead battalions of attorneys were given a license to lead the charge against those who would rather make their own decisions on health care. Lawsuits will have a new flavor. In addition to the thousands of malpractice suits filed yearly Obamacare lawsuits, in equal numbers, will join them. Rules to implement this behemoth are still being formulated by the Department of Health and Human Services. When fully released, thousands of pages of regulatory structure will be added on top of Obama’s grand Ponzi scheme to cure America. Treatment plans, diagnostics, choices of drugs, lengths of hospital stays and more will be controlled by central “authorities.” Stepping away from government protocols will not be an option for physicians and individuals. Physicians become indentured servants paid and controlled by a blind bureaucracy whose only goal is to keep the beast alive at any cost. Doctors out of compliance with the monotone tenets of Obamacare will find themselves looking for other work or even jailed. Lawyers will be bathed in money because they have been given the “right” to sue on behalf of the government at the national and state levels. Designers of this egregious legislation placed a smile on their public faces as they discussed Obamacare. In the dark halls of Congress most knew this legislation would bring on dissent once everyone was made aware of it contents.

 

     Checked your tax and insurance bills lately, you may be surprised. Over a dozen taxes and levies were brought to bear to support this new health scheme. Contrary to the President’s multiple statements that taxes will not increase for those earning 250,000 dollars or less, the antithesis is true. Many of the new charges affect people across the economic spectrum. Surcharges on investment income, increases in the Medicare payroll tax, mandated taxes on employees and employers, a tax on health insurers, excise taxes on so-called Cadillac insurance plans, taxes on medical device manufacturers, elevated threshold to deduct medical expenses on income taxes and many more are a direct result of government’s interference in the health system. Originally conceived as a program which would save hundreds of billions for its participants, economists’ worst nightmare has come true. Costs will not be contained in the manner as Congressional Budget Office officials originally stated. Trillion dollar deficits are perceived in the next few years. Even more detrimental those who decide to retain traditional insurance will find premiums exponentially higher.  Fiscally unsound algorithms are driving costs skyward resulting in millions of jobs vanishing from view and a health system placed in chaos.

 

     Obamacare is an indictment of the traditional medical system. Irrational as it sounds, the legal profession along with their legislative counterparts brought into law a legislation that condemns prior efforts to assure health care for all. Paradoxically Obamacare degrades the health system with erroneous formulas and algorithms to refabricate a medical industry that needed a tune up not an overhaul.  More than three years have passed since the inauguration of the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act. From the public’s perspective none of the promises envisioned by its engineers have come into existence. Alternatively Obamacare introduces a system struggling for an identity. A system that is so profoundly flawed that logic dictates it was never intended to fulfill the health needs of our expanding population.  Instead the Affordable Care Act has purposely caused; insurance rates to rise exponentially, reduction in provider access and dismembers traditional insurance pathways. My own Maryland Blue Cross policy has seen its renewal rate increase by 82.5% a month for the same limited coverage. Sticker shock is being realized throughout the country. Millions are being forced off their plans because of excessive costs or the plans cease to exist. Enter the Exchanges as a means to move us closer to a one payer system.

    

     October 1^st 2013 was a momentous day for Obamacare. On this day the full incompetence of the Affordable Care Act’s legislative mandate made its debut. Federal and state insurance Exchanges came on line for the first time or did they?  From their incipience technical flaws surfaced which hindered most from applying. Billions were spent to provide a seamless experience applying for health insurance in cyberspace.  Those who tried found glitch after glitch as the system mined them for irrelevant information. Nearly six months have passed since phase one of ACA began with elements of the system still being hidden from the public. A few facts have surfaced. More than 5 million have registered on various online sites, yet the government has not been transparent who these applicants are. Media reps have pressed government officials for the answers, specifically requesting whether these people have been moved from one subsidized program to another, essentially inflating the number of applicants. Answers to this question are still pending. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the architects of Obamacare, tragically admitted in order for this legislation to succeed millions of young people need to sign up. To this date that goal has not been achieved because there are built-in incentives for the youth of America not to apply. A small fine, with no teeth for collection, is awaiting those who go sans insurance. Obamacare is an obsolete mode of medical care delivery whose cost/benefits are low compared to the system it is attempting to replace.

 

     Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act is essentially an accusatory instrument denigrating the traditional system of health care delivery. This legislation’s breath taking scope enumerates multiple flaws in the system which it intends to correct. Written end to end by lawyers and peppered with a few tidbits from the medical community, failure was the ultimate end point of its designers’ intentions to lead the nation into a one payer system. Obamacare victimizes individuals and businesses by forcibly ensnaring them into purchasing a product in markets created by government entities. Refusal to obtain insurance can bring the wrath of an IRS agent to your front door. Ultimately the judge and jury of this abomination are the end-users, the public, who will discover that promises made are not promises kept. America’s health system will survive despite Obamacare’s brief interlude on the scene. This medical nightmare is unraveling. Its demise is imminent. The only unknown is when.

 

Mark Davis, MD is an author, journalist, media advisor and physician who has been intricately involved in the health care delivery system at many levels. As President of Heathnets Review Services and Davis Book Reviews he works with many authors to bring current health and political issues to a wide audience. Dr. Davis’ latest book is Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster. To contact him for consultation, seminars or interviews please use the following sites.

platomd@gmail.com   www.healthnetsreviewservices.com

Obamacare: A legacy unraveling

Obamacare: a legacy unraveling

 

While the majority of the population slept our misdirected government engineered major changes to their legacy legislative effort, Obamacare. Most startling of the alterations, many will be able to keep their traditional plans intact deep into 2017. Thirty other changes, through Executive edicts, have been implemented to make this egregious law more palatable to voters in 2014 and  subsequently for the presidential election in 2016. Driven by political considerations candidates running for Democrat seats in the House and Senate are running away from this catastrophe in evolution. Many ardent supporters of Obama are having second thoughts concerning his agenda, as the President tweaks the legal nightmare he has inflicted on the nation. Dozens of mandates have been modified, extended and or simply circumvented to keep the Affordable Care Act afloat. Insufficient numbers of paying subscribers have signed up in the Exchanges. Reportedly four million have enrolled. Those in the know question the mix of this group. White House officials are mum whether these new Exchange patrons have been moved off Medical Assistance to this newest of subsidized programs. This leaves a small window of possibility that a few paying customers joined. Many are asking the question whether the Affordable Care Act is on life support. Omens of failure are omnipresent. Insurance premium nightmares are being reported throughout the country, rising by as much as 100%.  Those who have not lost their jobs are seeing their hours cut by 25% or more. Clever means have been purported to deny patrons of this disaster the very elements advertised by the President and his minions. Obamacare was never about improving health care in America. Instead it was designed to usurp one-sixth of the economy and create a unitary payer system with the central core controlled by the Washington D.C.  bureaucracy. Confusion has been introduced into the health system, at every level, which completely defeats its endgame, better medical care for all.  Affordable care Act has been found to be not so affordable. From the perches of many Obamacare is unraveling and could sink under its own weight. In subsequent articles the dangers of Obamacare will be discussed.

 

Mark Davis, MD author of Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster. http://amzn.to/1d4poKi.  https://www.createspace.com/3801630

platomd@gmail.com   President of Davis Book Reviews and Healthnets Review Services. www.healthnetsreviewservices.com