What Shawn Tully's column at CNNMoney.com did on July 24 to expose the truth about what ObamaCare does to the coverage of those who have employer-provided health insurance (discussed yesterday at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), the Washington Post's Charles Lane did on August 8 ("Undue Influence; The House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel") to the myth that ObamaCare won't have serious negative consequences for patients who begin to have serious, potentially life-ending health issues.
Mr. Lane has clearly read the bill, clearly doesn't like what he sees, and calls it out in specific detail.
He starts out slowly by creating the straw-man argument that those "on the far right" see ObamaCare "as a plan to force everyone over 65 to sign his or her own death warrant. That's rubbish."
Of course it is, but so is the claim that opponents on the right or left are saying that. Even Sarah Palin's Facebook post never mentions "euthanasia," and Ann Althouse correctly characterizes Pailn's reference to "death panels" as "a good and fair polemical expression if in fact life-saving care will be rationed on this basis (of what Palin described as “level of productivity in society")."
There is plenty of reason to believe it will be, as Lane explains (bolds are mine):
..... I was not reassured to read in an Aug. 1 Post article that "Democratic strategists" are "hesitant to give extra attention to the issue by refuting the inaccuracies, but they worry that it will further agitate already-skeptical seniors."
If Section 1233 is innocuous, why would "strategists" want to tip-toe around the subject?
Perhaps because, at least as I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous.
Until now, federal law has encouraged end-of-life planning -- gently. In 1990, Congress required health-care institutions (not individual doctors) to give new patients written notice of their rights to make living wills, advance directives and the like -- but also required them to treat patients regardless of whether they have such documents.
..... Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.
What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor "shall" discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to"; "an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses" (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families." The doctor "shall" explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).
..... Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.
Lane gets close to another key point, but doesn't quite get there. It's reasonable to believe that the medical profession would in short order determine that performing end of life consultations is the conscientious thing to do. Conversely, not doing them under ObamaCare would likely be seen as problematic in medical quality control and peer reviews, as well as in matters relating to professional advancement.
Nonetheless, the nuking (based on specific language in the plan itself) by an editorialist at a clearly left-leaning outfit of the claim that ObamaCare's end of life consultations are mere angelic, pressure-free additions to a pure patient-driven plan should be seen as a significant milestone in discrediting the whole unwieldy contraption -- which is more than likely why Lane's contrarian editorial has gained relatively little establishment media.
When you combine Lane's a clear understanding of how the counseling "feature" would incentivize denial of care with the frightening utilitarianism of many of the President's closest advisers and the clear evidence that the President himself has succumbed to a great extent to the utilitarian non-ethic, you realize that not only is there is no moral alternative to opposing ObamaCare as it currently stands, but that there is no way to make it acceptable as long as those who are in charge remain in charge.
Perhaps if more beat reporters would actually read the bill and investigate some of the ghoulish beliefs of many of those who are closest to the President, we wouldn't have to wait for people like Tully at Fortune and Lane at the Post to do it for them. In the old newspapers days, getting scooped by someone on the opinion side would be seen as a humiliation to those in the trenches. Alas, it appears that their capacity for embarrassment has diminished to near nothingness.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ya know...
August 11, 2009 - 23:24 ET by pwozWe'll be ok. The People are starting to wake up from the bs being fed to them by not just the MSM, but the Demoncrap party.
Never before have I heard so many people discuss politics... and these people never really cared. They bought into the "but...but.. Bush" crowd and voted for the Messiah, but now they're realizing he's nothing but a communist that reminds them of their former lives in Europe (many people I know/related to are from communist-era Poland).
They see the same tactics being played out... the media fear mongers..and when the opposition arises, they claim that it's a fringe group being paid by a special interest.
Nothing pisses me off more than that weasel c dumpster Gibbs. He is such a piece of garbage.
It is becoming extremely difficult for me to respect our President. I disagree with just about everything he has implemented, but he's given us NO indication of any recovery.
The Deutsche Bank says we're going to have 50% of mortgages in default by 2011.
The dollar index is plummeting, therefore, the dollar is collapsing.
We lose 250k jobs and unemployment improved?.. heck shadowstats has us around 20%.
I was an Independent for a long time... until Democrats absolutely destroyed my home state of NJ. I see what they have done to ruin our state with their moronic liberal fantasy policies.. and it turns out most of these programs come from California. California is so wonderful and they're not bankrupt or anything. They have low crime, incredible job growth, no illegal aliens, and people are just flocking to buy overpriced real estate... ok end rant.
Investigation, we don't need no skinkin' investigation...
August 12, 2009 - 00:25 ET by DustBunny01The only way that you could get the MSM to investigate this would be to have a Republican Admin in the White House and Republicans in charge in both houses and the individual insurance plans of those with the MSM on the chopping block.
As long as the reverse is true and the only people looking down the barrel are those people living in "fly over country"; they have no interest in looking at anything.
Situational awareness
August 12, 2009 - 00:29 ET by KC MulvilleIf you knew that this was the last year of your life, would you burden your family with extraordinary medical bills? Maybe, maybe not. That would be the make perfect time for you to initiate a conversation about end of life issues.
Then again, how many of us know a year ahead of time that it's the last year of our life?
Think about this. Your government is paying your doctor to suggest that you save everyone money instead of risking end of life treatment.
And when does this conversation happen? During a visit ... that you're paying for in the first place.
Genius. Just ... genius ...
Be careful, KC...it's
August 12, 2009 - 01:31 ET by ckc1227Be careful, KC...it's almost like you're talking about death panels....nwahs doesn't like it when people talk about death panels. You wouldn't like him when he's angry. It really brings out the uber Conservative monster hiding inside....kind of like the hulk. ;)
Death panels
August 12, 2009 - 07:34 ET by KC MulvilleYeah, I better be careful. When I find myself standing in front of a death panel, they'll decline me for sure! LOL!
"Zo, you ver against us, Comrade Mulville? You had big mouth then?"
That's not far-fetched at
August 12, 2009 - 06:31 ET by motherbeltThat's not far-fetched at all. (Well, except for the doctor talking about the unions LOL)
The President has claimed that doctors now treat patients on the basis of what is more profitable for them.
In his HMO situation, however, doctors will be rewarded for how much money they save the insurance company (the government, in this case).
So, if he thinks a doctor would do unnecessary surgery to make money, why would he think that a doctor would NOT aggressively argue for non-treatment to get a bonus for saving money?
Agreed
August 12, 2009 - 08:39 ET by KC MulvilleThey're tiptoeing a thin line of ambiguity. When challenged, their defense is that having end-of-life conversations is a good thing, right? Well, yeah, sure it is, in general.
But when it comes in the context of a healthcare bill, and the government is paying doctors to "remind" patients that it's pointless to seek expensive treatment, the only conclusion you can draw is that the government is pressuring people to avoid end of life treatment, because of the cost. Let's face it, it's pressure about a health decision based on economics. And if you're elderly, you're being presured to avoid treatment that will keep you alive ... so that the healthcare system can save money.
The say it's preposterous that the government is advocating euthenasia, but when you look at the ramifications of what they're suggesting, the law of unintended consequences takes over.
I have no problem with
August 12, 2009 - 18:50 ET by stratmanI have no problem with appropriately timed discussions on end of life care. I also have no problem with physicians being paid for providing this service to their patients - my time should be compensated when I provide a documented service.
I would, however, have a problem if amount of reimbursement for the discussion was increased if the patient actually agrees to restriction of end of life care. The idea of a commision or bonus on signing up people for end of life non-care is abhorent.
I also have a problem with the Federal government inculcating itself further into the intimate relationship between patient and physician. The only incentive the government has in this instance is to "save" money by "educating" the patient to forego care. While the physician may have this in mind as well - to save money - IMO the main reason physician's feel compelled to discuss end of life issues is because of their opinion of added suffering to the patient with full-on care in consideration of the specific situation the patient is enduring.
Yes, there is an element of wanting to avoid "futile" care, but, and this is the BIG difference, there is no financial incentive for the physician to have the patient forego care and there is essentially little monetary incentive to continue care as well.
Insurance companies and the Government want the physician to treat the situation as their, the physician's, responsibility to have the healthcare dollar "spent wisely". Physicians should be mindfull of cost, as waste for lack of knowledge is not lauditory,but, this is a construct placed on the physician by those with a direct interest in "saving" money.
It is plain creepy to have Government involved in any end of life care discussions with patients, let alone having the final say on what a patient's end of life care entails.
In my experience, having an interpersonal relationship with the patient is what incentivizes the physician to do what is best for the patient. The same can not be said of Government whose only connection to the patient is money.
Not exactly related to this
August 12, 2009 - 00:38 ET by jdhawkNot exactly related to this article in the Post, Camille Paglia wrote an article in Salon.com yesterday that rips both bambi, the first stupid liberal, his administration, Pelosi, and the Congress on the health care issues.
Before I link to it, note that Paglia is an ardent liberal that spent the last eight years with a terminal case of BDS. Here it is: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/.
And it only took her 5
August 12, 2009 - 01:23 ET by ckc1227And it only took her 5 sentences to show she still suffers from a touch of the BDS, lol.
jdhawk
August 12, 2009 - 03:55 ET by well99Did you read some of the post about Paglias article?There are some nasty twits over there.
This is OT but for all you right wing extremist DHS has a highly methodical assessment method. Be warned.
http://www.getliberty.org/
Who wrote the nonsense in
August 12, 2009 - 01:20 ET by marvlWho wrote the nonsense in this bill? It surely wasn't doctors or nurses. I kept expecting language about what the doctor must wear to the meeting, what days of the week on which it can be held, how long the meeting must last, how many words the doctor can say, the number of questions a patient may ask the doctor, etc., etc., etc.
I've got my own plan which would fix health care and a whole lot more: pass a law requiring Senators and Congressmen to memorize a bill before they are allowed to vote on it. Most of those brain dead fools can barely remember their home phone number. Having to memorize 1000+ pages of legal garbage would virtually doom most legislation and shut down the legislative branch.
No Congress would be a wonderful thing for America. As Mark Twain noted, "Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman can." And as Alexis de Tocqueville noted, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Folks, we're seeing the end of the American Republic.
Lawyera and bureaucrats
August 12, 2009 - 05:01 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou know.. the ones that will dictate who gets what under ObamaCare.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
All you would have to do is
August 12, 2009 - 06:22 ET by GrannyGrump42All you would have to do is have them and their families subject to the same crap they want to inflict on the rest of us. They'd change their tunes real fast.
The whole "No pressure
August 12, 2009 - 06:20 ET by GrannyGrump42The whole "No pressure consultations" puts me in mind of the "no pressure consultations" doctors already do to browbeat parents into aborting if a prenatal test shows possible problems withe the baby. It also puts me in mind of a drive the CDC initiated back in the 1970s (fortunately Reagan put a stop to it) to require every woman who had a positive pregnancy test "to be informed of the availability of safe, legal abortion".
No pressure. Not.
On the other hand, nowadays
August 12, 2009 - 07:28 ET by karelingOn the other hand, nowadays the pro-abortion groups don't like the idea of women getting counseling or information before getting an abortion, no waiting periods, no ultrasounds; let's get her in there now and rip it out before she gets too scared to go through with it and changes her mind.
Sort of fits with Congress wanting to ram through all these bills without reading them or letting the rest of us know what's in them.
Honestly, I never put
August 12, 2009 - 06:30 ET by dmntd1Honestly, I never put that two and two together. I'd read 1233, but didn't even think of the doctor forcibly starting that conversation. Now that you mention it, though, I agree it's pretty likely that a doctor would do that, if only to cover his backside. That raises a whole different problem, as well. The section only covers it once every five years. What if two different doctors initiate that conversation, a mere month apart? Does that mean Gramps is going to have to shell out (automatically deducted from his bank account, of course) a couple hundred bucks to pay for a discussion that has already been had?
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
The magic negro doesn't give
August 12, 2009 - 06:56 ET by George S PattonThe magic negro doesn't give a damn about his own relatives so why would anyone think that this constitutional s##thead will give a damn about average American. Just tell obama and the rest FU!
I honestly don't understand
August 12, 2009 - 09:39 ET by mamabearI honestly don't understand what the fuss is about. Everyone seems to assume that doctors talking to their patients will try to pressure them to make decisions that they wouldn't otherwise make. Is there any evidence for that? If there is, show it.
Doctors should be involved in discussions about living wills and life support orders, because only they, not your family or your lawyer, can explain what the different options mean medically, physically, for the patient.
The other unfounded assumption is that the only way this is a cost cutting policy is if doctors do pressure patients into changing their preferences to the cheapest option. Not true. It is also a cost cutting policy if, when living wills don't exist and the family and physicians are forced to make the decision for the patient, we currently keep more patients on life support than would want it, and take fewer patients off life support than would prefer that option. If that is true, than increasing the number of living wills that clarify patient desires will both save money and ensure that more people receive the treatment they desire. Isn't that a good thing?
I tried to find statistics on whether or not that is happening, and had a really hard time. I found one study that concluded that doctors actually erred on the side of providing too much support, while family members erred on the side of providing too little, but it also mentioned that previous studies went the other way. Hard to tell.
What can be said with certainty, is that uncertainty about patient wishes creates a huge thorny nasty ball of unhappimess for everyone involved. Surrogate decision makers suffer long term emotional and physical consequences from the stress, doctors agonize endlessly over how to counsel families or how to make decisions for people who have no surrogates.
Maybe you don't want to talk to your doctor about the options for designating end of life care, it's depressing. After the reading I've just done, I'm inclined to say tough! You owe it to everyone you care about to suck it up and have the conversation. If you end up on life support, even if you didn't get around to the living will, just the fact that you had one conversation with your doctor might improve the chances that the right decisions are made for you when you can't make them yourself. Because like it or not, there may be a situation in which that doctor is the one who has to make a decision for you.
It sounds like a good idea to me.
With respect, I disagree
August 12, 2009 - 10:32 ET by KC MulvilleIs an end of life discussion a good idea? Sure, in general. But in the specific context of a healthcare bill that's intended to cut costs, and the doctors are being paid to provoke the conversation, what other conclusion can you draw? It's not a question of evidence, it's a question of examining the inherently mixed motives of that policy.
I agree that people should have that conversation. But you have to ask yourself, why is government involved in it? If it's such a good idea by itself, why should government pay doctors to have it?
Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean government has a mandate to enforce it. Jogging might be a good and healthy idea, but does that mean the government should enforce it? It isn't a question of whether the idea is any good ... it's a question of whether government has any business in it.
I understand where the
August 12, 2009 - 11:00 ET by mamabearI understand where the worry comes from, I just think it is unfounded and kind of trying to have your cake and eat it to.
You can't complain about how government will be wasteful and inefficient compared to private companies (and when I say "you", I realize I am probably lumping together lots of disparate complaints against this program. No poster here has to be responsible for every opinion espoused by their political allies!) and then complain that they shouldn't consider cost when formulating care policies. Honestly, does anyone think that insurance company profit concerns don't affect the kind of care that people receive under our current system? Of course they do! There are mixed motives throughout our healthcare system. I personally think that motives would be a lot less mixed if private for-profit companies were less influential. The trade off for that is probably a decrease in efficiency. There's no perfect solution there.
You pay the doctors to do it because otherwise the doctor's stake is much lower than everyone else. End of life discussions primarily benefit the patient and the patient's family. Secondarily they benefit taxpayers who share the cost of poor decisions and doctors who occasionally have to make them. So incentivise doctors to try and improve the level of care by ensuring that people's wishes are carried out.
You can argue that government shouldn't be involved, but government is. Eliminating government involvement in health entirely means eliminating the FDA, Medicare, the NIH, the CDC. I'm sure there are people who think we should do that, but I don't see the evil in government involvement in health. Nothing is being enforced here except that doctors are encouraged through financial means (and I couldn't find that in the section referenced, but I'll trust the article that its true) to offer a discussion that we all seem to agree should happen. The patient doesn't have to take them up on it, and if they do, they don't have to make a decision one way or the other.
Distinctions
August 12, 2009 - 11:29 ET by KC MulvilleI respect your civility, mamabear, and appreciate your objections. I often preface my replies by saying, "with respect, I disagree," and that's because when people behave with respect, they deserve respect in return.
I'm going to argue that you're relying on a couple of shaky foundations there. (Naturally you'll disagree, but that's OK.)
If you start with the assumption that healthcare is a right, then it's perfectly reasonable to expect government to get involved. But when something isn't a civil right, our tradition is to allow the free market to dictate the rules of the game. For me, that's the foundational question: is healthcare a right? If it is, then government should be involved. But if it isn't, then the free market should rule, and government's role is strictly to enforce ordinary citizen protection laws.
Civil discourse is fun
August 12, 2009 - 18:56 ET by mamabearCivil discourse is fun :)
You are absolutely right that you can make distinctions about different types and levels of government involvement. I sort of glossed over it, but my point was that once government is involved on some level it has a responsibility to improve it's operations when it can. I would consider more conscientious end of life care an improvement.
I don't think health care is a right, so much as I think it is a societal value. This will be hard to explain in short form, but I think America is a place where we help each other out. If any of us saw someone on the side of the road having a heart attack, we'd pull over and help them right?
But I can't fix anyone's heart. So what I do when someone has a heart attack and I want to help them, is I take them to a doctor. But what then? Unless we have a system through which each of us shares the burden of that charity, I've just put all of the burden of helping that person, who may or may not have the means topay for care, on the doctor.
So instead, each of us pays taxes into a system that compensates doctors to help out the people we see on the side of the road every day. I know it isn't that simple in practice, but for me that's the philosophy behind it. Health care isn't a right, per say, but I want to live in a society in which we don't drive by and let someone else worry about the guy on the side of the road.
We could, of course, all just donate money to non profit hospitals, but that wouldn't work on a national scale. Wealthy neighborhoods would have better care than poor neighborhoods and in the end we'd still be leaving each other lying on the side of the road, dying of a metaphorical heart attack!
And personal responsibility has nothing to do with it for me either. Humblepie might be mad in the abstract that illegal immigrants will benefit from care he pays for, but I bet if a hispanic-looking man fell down in front of him while he was walking out of a Home Depot, foaming at the mouth and spasming, he'd call 911. We are only capable of denying help to that person when their problems are so far removed from us that they don't trigger feelings of compassion. That lets us be more rational and selfish, which can be a good thing, but I think we should always remember that in the end, we help each other out because it is the right thing to do.
So much for the short form :)
Physician, Heal thy self
August 12, 2009 - 10:52 ET by HumblepieDoctors are in the profession to save lives, not to discuss end of life options. By your argument, my Dad would of died ten years ago instead of July 25th of this year. Ten years ago my father under went a triple by-pass. Complication arose from surgery and for a week we didn't know if he would make it. On the eighth day, he started to turn around and made a full recovery. Under your argument, the plug would of been pulled since all signs suggested he would not recover. He would of missed the birth of his last two grandchildren, the marriage of his second grandchild, and the marriage of his only son. He died two weeks ago at age 73 from spinal cancer. You as an individual can determine if you need a living will, power of attorney or such. It is not the doctors place or position to discuss such matters unless that time comes and a decision needs to be made. But it should be an informed decision based on current conditions and advise from your doctor.
We are not God and should stop acting as such. If you want Support Orders, Living Wills, etc, thats is your decision to make, not the governments or the doctor.
Quick! The gene pool needs more chlorine.
I'm very sorry to hear
August 12, 2009 - 11:11 ET by mamabearI'm very sorry to hear about your father, and I understand how this can be a sensitive issue when you've just lost someone close to you.
I want to be clear, my argument says nothing about pulling any plug, anywhere. Nothing. Neither does the health care bill, at least the parts I've read.
It only specifies that doctors should offer to discuss the issue so that patients can understand their options and clarify their wishes. If someone wants to be given the chance to live, then talking with their doctor about it reduces the chance that someone ends their life before they would have wanted, it doesn't make it more likely.
Our doctors may need to make these decisions for us. That's a worst case scenario, but it happens. They are involved when the time comes, so I think they should be involved in planning for it. All it does is reduce the chances that a terrible mistake is made.
It is absolutely your decision to make a will or not make one. How you want to be treated is your decision. All this section of the bill does is stipulate that people will be offered the chance to learn more and communicate those wishes to people involved in providing care.
The problem here
August 12, 2009 - 11:30 ET by general companyIs not just what the bill say's, it is also what it doesnt say. Most of it is very vauge, exept when stating punitive penalties. I for one would not take the vauge terminology and then try to suggest I know what they are trying to do, I would take it as being to broad and covering every policy avenue they may want to pursue. Not to mention, this bill has more funding for Dem supporters, does nothing to cap lawsuits, does nothing (in-fact makes it harder) to allow insurers to better compete. That in itself disqualifies it in my eyes as being any kind of serious legislation. There is not relief here, only more bureaucracy and pay-off's
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Sorry, still disagree
August 12, 2009 - 12:10 ET by HumblepieAgain, a physicians job is to heal the sick. In every doctors office I've been to there are pamphlets available that explain options available and their impact. They also suggest you contact a lawyer to setup future plans.
The oath for physicians does not state they should provide options for the elderly, nor that the government should pay them for providing this information. The physician is tasked with healing the sick to the best of their ability without creating undue harm. I would feel highly uneasy if my physician brought this up, makes me wonder what is wrong with me and is she/he really looking out for my best interest.
Who's to say that later on physicians will not be paid per document from each patient? This is opening a can of worms that only the government will control. Why can't a pamphlet be given by the receptionist after the visit. This way people can read it on their own and then ask questions to their physician. There is no pressure and people can make a decision to seek further guidance.
Let the doctors do their job and keep the government out of it. Then again, I'm highly delighted that illegal aliens will have access to the government program without paying for it. Ah, thats right, we the taxpayers will cover it for them.
Every medical situation is different and a one approach method will not work. To have a one-plan fits all approach is unacceptable. My wife and I have sat down and talked about it, then asked questions to our family doctor. Afterwards, we had our lawyers draw up rather specific document to cover certain events. Our family knows our desires and wishes and should it not be covered, we know the right decision when the time comes.
People need to start taking responsibility for their own lives and stop relying on government mandates and laws. The U.S. Constitution does not permit the government to control every aspect of your life. You have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," you might not achieve happiness, but you can pursue it.
Quick! The gene pool needs more chlorine.
CYA
August 12, 2009 - 09:55 ET by needleCharles Lane’s "Undue Influence; The House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel" is a check-off. It is not to be discussed any further. But after we are saddled with the “death panel,” nobody can accuse the Washington Post of not covering this evil threat.
Please note this check-off was published in a Saturday edition during the dog days of August; it was definitely NOT intended to be broadly read and discussed.
- Relying upon the State Run Media for your information is like relying upon an embezzler for your portfolio management.
Whole Foods Plan!
August 12, 2009 - 11:54 ET by slickwillie2001Some of you folks might appreciate the Whole Foods' CEO alternative to Obamacare. Who would have thought such common sense could come from someone you'd expect to be a bleeding-heart leftie?
The Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare: http://corner.nationalreview.com