
Save the Planet Kill Yourself
It is hard to put into words how perverse and disgusting it is to have a country with a law like Population Control. The fact that they are so “Matter of Fact” about it makes it even worse, taking a human life in the name of the government is said to be okay. China has a large population and lots of pollution, and they use this to justify their “one baby per family” rule.
Laws like this devalue the tremendous value that life caries. It is so hard for us to understand because we value life of others more than our own in many cases. Or do we? There is a growing number of Western Nations that would be subdued to the devaluation of life, in the name of government. Look at health care, we and other countries are already putting a value on life in the name of cost cutting. And we are getting articles from journalist like this one from the China Daily that are agreeing and promoting with China’s laws in the name of Global Warming and Global Population Control. It’s sickening to me.
[source: ChinaDaily]

Congressional Hall
It has always amazed me at how well the government takes care of its own. I’m not talking about the people that elect them, I’m talking about the unelected bureaucrats in so many powerful positions amongst the government. It gets even worse when we are in a recession cutting back on our standard of living and grasping trying to hold on to what we have, while they are increasing in numbers and pay.
The Obama administration made claims about cutting federal spending and cutting back in the government, well this would have been one of their chances. Instead they allow these bureaucrats to receive big salary raises – on top of great healthcare and pension benefits – while the “Pay Czar” is cutting salary to private citizens. Something is backwards here.
[source: USA Today]

The Price of Cost Cutting
Sarah Palin has been ridiculed over and over for bringing up the notion of death panels, yet if we follow into the footsteps of other countries with national healthcare that’s exactly what we’ll have. Sure take away all the platitudes and politically correct language and what you are left with is a government bureaucracy that has the power to decide life and death.
You say that couldn’t happen here, well it could and will. You say we have the same situation with the insurance companies, I say you are half way right. But with the insurance companies you at least have options. You could switch companies, you could go through a charity or hospital that can help, or you can raise the money to pay yourself. In many countries with national healthcare, once the government says no you have no other choice.
This article is one of a growing many that explains the disaster of the government running end of life care.
Click the jump to see the source article.

Congressional Hall
What a joke! What are these guys scared of when posting bills online. Even this won’t help too much but why not allow the American people who are interested in seeing what their government is pushing on them by simply posting the bills online?
And wasn’t this one of Obama’s campaign promises to post bills and agenda’s online before voting on takes place? Why is Obama not out there excoriating these people and letting them know that this is what he wants them to do?
Bringing trancpericy to our federal government is going to take a lot of hard work and spine. These people know that allowing the American public to see what they are doing and what they are voting on will lead to backlash and possibly the end of their terms.
Follow the Jump to read the Source article:
What you don’t know can hurt you:
» House energy and global warming bill, passed June 26, 2009. 1,200 pages. Available online 15 hours before vote.
» $789 billion stimulus bill, passed Feb. 14, 2009. 1,100 pages. Available online 13 hours before debate.
» $700 billion financial sector rescue package, passed Oct. 3, 2008. 169 pages. Available online 29 hours before vote.
» USA Patriot domestic surveillance bill, passed Oct. 23, 2001. Unavailable to the public before debate.

Obama Health Insurance
It all started with a question. If you are going to impose on every American that they must buy Health Insurance, then what is the penalty if they choose not to?
The answer is very disturbing!
A $25,000 fine or up to a year in jail!
Read more:
September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall
Ensign receives handwritten confirmation
This doesn’t happen often enough.
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.” |
| By Carrie Budoff Brown 11:40 AM |
September 24, 2009
Categories: Senate
Flout the mandate penalty? Face the IRS
Americans who fail to pay the penalty for not buying insurance would face legal action from the Internal Revenue Service, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
The remarks Thursday from the committee’s chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, seems to further weaken President Barack Obama’s contention last week that the individual mandate penalty, which could go as high as $1,900, is not a tax increase.
Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would “take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings.”
Ensign pursued the line of questioning because he said a lot of Americans don’t believe the Constitution allows the government to mandate the purchase of insurance.
“We could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously, because they believe in the U.S. Constitution, we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, all the way up to imprisonment,” Ensign said. “That seems to me to be a problem.”
Ensign’s argument , however, wasn’t persuasive to the committee — which rejected an amendment from Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) to eliminate the individual mandate.
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to preserve the mandate. |
| By Carrie Budoff Brown 04:04 PM |

Obama
Only a week after top scientist make a u-turn on global warming, our president faces major nations of the world to announce what America is doing to combat “man-made climate change”
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 9/22/09 10:28 AM EDT
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27430.html#ixzz0RtI5FCcr
President Barack Obama’s closely watched climate change speech at the United Nations got a mixed reaction Tuesday: Some world leaders saluted his rhetoric, but environmental activists expressed disappointment that he didn’t commit to a timeline to pass cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate.
“After too many years of inaction and denial, there is finally widespread recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us. We know what needs to be done,” Obama told fellow heads of state gathered for a climate change summit called by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
“The House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Obama said. “One committee has already acted on this bill in the Senate, and I look forward to engaging with others as we move forward.”
Many diplomats and environmentalists were hoping that Obama would detail his strategy to move House-approved carbon-emissions-trading legislation through the Senate and onto his desk to be signed into law ahead of a key climate change conference this December in Copenhagen. But the president made only a vague pledge to continue pushing for the measure.
“The Obama speech was a missed opportunity,” said Annie Petsonk, international counsel for Environmental Defense Fund. “Leaders want him to lay out a game plan to get a bill through the Senate, to give some timeline, some commitment to do it on a timely basis. … They didn’t get it.”
Environmental activists are particularly concerned that U.S. influence and leadership in the climate issue are dwindling ahead of Copenhagen, with the issue of global warming getting pushed further and further down the presidential agenda by other pressing concerns, such as health care reform, the recession and Afghanistan.
Former Vice President Al Gore gave a warm, but not effusive, reception to Obama’s remarks.
“I thought that he was simply recognizing the reality of the situation that this legislation is still pending,” Gore said at a U.N. press briefing. “I welcome his promise to get personally engaged in the work of the Senate committees.”
Gore said it would be “far better” for the climate change treaty talks set for Copenhagen in December if the U.S. Senate acted by then.
“I would encourage the Senate to take up the climate and energy legislation immediately upon conclusion of the pending health care debate, if not before,” Gore said. “I interpret President Obama’s statement about getting involved in that process to mean that he will urge them to do exactly that.”
Asked about the decision not to set a timeline, White House climate czar Carol Browner said the Senate’s pace was not under Obama’s control. “The Senate is hard at work,” Browner said. “Health care has obviously taken up more time than was originally anticipated. … At the end of the day, [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid does set the schedule for the Senate, and we have to be mindful of that.”
Obama said little about the resistance in the Senate but indicated the recent economic slump has left some lawmakers reluctant to impose emissions changes that could affect a weakened economy.
“We seek sweeping but necessary change in the midst of a global recession, where every nation’s most immediate priority is reviving their economy and putting their people back to work. And so all of us will face doubts and difficulties in our own capitals as we try to reach a lasting solution to the climate challenge,” Obama said. “But I’m here today to say that difficulty is no excuse for complacency. Unease is no excuse for inaction.”
The president insisted his administration has taken a series of important, groundbreaking actions to fight global warming, such as increasing fuel economy standards and directing stimulus funds and tax credits to energy efficiency.
“These steps represent an historic recognition on behalf of the American people and their government,” he said. “We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. We will meet our responsibility to future generations.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27430.html#ixzz0RtICWibT
Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn’t marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?
Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents.
Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.
Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.
When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it’s usually newsworthy.
So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?
Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC’s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.
Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN’s World Climate Conference–an annual gathering of the so-called “scientific consensus” on man-made climate change –Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering “one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.”
The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.
But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.
“How much?” he wondered before the assembled delegates. “The jury is still out.”
But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.
While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.
Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030.
In the past year, two other groups of scientists–one in Germany, the second in the United States–have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth’s upper oceans, but it will resume.
But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?
My point is they cannot. It’s true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.
Lorne Gunter is a columnist with the Edmonton Journal and National Post.

Congressional Hall
| Bill Name |
Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 |
| Bill Category |
Amendment |
| Extented Title |
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes. |
| Bill Summary |
This information is intended to be a nonpartisan summary and may not include all specifics contained in the full text of the bill. Further research may be necessary in order to make an informed decision. This bill does several things. First, this bill increases, by $490, the maximum Pell Grant amount that can be awarded to students. This bill also allocates money to be given in the form of grants to states for programs to promote the completion of post-secondary education, especially for minority groups that are underrepresented in higher education. This bill also states that if a student is called up for active duty in the military, and has taken a loan to pay for that portion of his/her schooling, then that portion of the loan will be repaid for him/her. If a student has more than $150,000 in assets, then that student will not be eligible for Pell grants, loans, or work assistance. Also this bill includes language that would prohibit federal funds from what are called certain indicted organizations, specifically the community organizing group ACORN. |
| Bill Type |
House Bill |
| Interest |
Education, House of Representatives, Monetary |
| Sponsor |
George Miller (D) California |
Co-Sponsor
|
|
| 09-17-2009 |
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 253 – 171 (Roll no. 719). |
| 07-27-2009 |
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 111-232. |
| 07-15-2009 |
Introduced in House |
CBO estimates 705 billion in loans, 70% of all loan volume over the next 10 years.
Bill Upends System for College Loans
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125321217589620383.html
(See Corrections & Amplifications below)
WASHINGTON — House approval of an education-financing bill Thursday marks a first step toward sweeping changes in U.S. higher education that would cut out private lenders and leave the government as sole provider of student loans under federal programs.
The bill, which passed on a largely party-line 253-171 vote, would save taxpayers $87 billion over the next decade by ending fees paid by the government to private lenders, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Among other things, the House bill would use the anticipated savings to increase grants for low-income students and boost funding for minority students.
The cost of student loans wouldn’t change as a result of the overhaul, according to the Obama administration. The only difference would be the source of the loans — the government as opposed to private lenders.
While the measure would eliminate private lenders from originating government-backed loans, banks and other lenders would be allowed to bid for a limited number of contracts to service government-made loans.
Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers Association, said Congress and the Obama administration should “consider alternative approaches that maintain choice for students and protect local jobs” at banks. Ending private lenders’ ability to originate government-backed loans “is a step in the wrong direction and at the wrong time,” he said.
The House vote follows two years of turmoil in the student-loan industry. In 2007, Congress reduced government payments to lenders making federally guaranteed student loans by more than $20 billion — just as credit markets started to seize up, eventually making it nearly impossible for lenders to package student loans into securities and sell them to investors, a key source of liquidity. Since the fall of 2007, more than 180 lenders have exited from all or part of the federal student-loan program.
This week, Fitch Ratings downgraded student-loan company SLM Corp., better known as Sallie Mae, to BBB-, and called its outlook negative.
For the school year that ended in the spring, companies lent students at 4,465 schools a total of $74 billion, up 13% from $65.3 billion the prior year.

Benjamin Franklin
What a great piece written on the anniversary of the Constitution. We could learn a lot about our government and our founding by going back and reading this stuff. Not just the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, but other work and speeches during the time.
Thanks Margaret Byfield for the reminder.
by Margaret Byfield
http://www.stewards.us/libertymatters/summer2001/lmj-summer01-6.htm
The men affectionately remembered, as America’s Founding Fathers did nothing less than overthrow the world’s greatest power and establish an independent nation based upon the principles of individual liberty for the first time in the history of the world.
It took this remarkable combination of men to achieve this. If you take anyone of our Founding Fathers away, the American Revolution most surely would have concluded differently. Imagine winning the revolutionary war without the leadership of George Washington, or the creation of the Declaration of Independence without the wisdom and brilliant expression of Thomas Jefferson, or the meticulously crafted Constitution without the insight of James Madison.
One man in this unique class of Founding Fathers, however, stands out not only for his individual deeds, but also because he was the only patriot involved in all it’s major events. It is Benjamin Franklin. Franklin’s life, born in 1706 and deceased in 1790, spans the entire revolutionary period, and he had his hand in every facet of the development of this new nation, from the colonial uprising to the final ratification of the new nation’s governing document, the United States Constitution.
It was Thomas Jefferson who predicted that of all the revolutionary leaders Benjamin Franklin would be remembered long after he and the others were forgotten because they recognized that Franklin was indispensable to the establishment of America’s independence. In a letter to William Smith after Franklin’s death, Jefferson fondly remembered Franklin, “as our great and dear friend, whom time will be making greater while it is sponging us from it’s records.”
Franklin’s first political activities began as early as age 14 when he was helping his brother James run the Boston Newspaper, The New England Courant. Because of the paper’s political opinions, which were critical of British rule, James was imprisoned for a short time while the paper continued under Benjamin’s name. This early introduction into politics was only the beginning for young Ben. By the time the Stamp Act was passed in 1765, which sparked the colonist’s uprising, Ben was 59 and had developed well-seasoned political opinions, which he gladly shared with other colonists. He is credited with creating America’s first political cartoon, published in order to galvanize the support against British oppression. It is the famous drawing of the snake cut into sections with the words “Join or Die,” inscribed.
Franklin left his Boston home at age 17 after a disagreement with his brother James. He arrived in Philadelphia with only a Dutch dollar and about a shilling in copper. Within seven years he started The Pennsylvania Gazette and was an active community leader in Philadelphia where he was busy organizing the many service organizations he is credited with starting.
These include the first fire department and night patrol in Philadelphia. He was our nation’s first Postmaster, founded the Pennsylvania Hospital and the Library Company of Philadelphia. But it was science that truly inspired him. He was continually studying the discipline and took advantage of his official trips to Europe as America’s Ambassador in order to consult with other scientists. The result is the creation of several useful conveniences. For instance, he invented the first stove of its kind, the Franklin Stove, which unlike a fireplace could produce heat and direct the smoke out of the dwelling. We are all familiar with the image of Ben flying a kite with a metal key in a lighting storm. He was the first to prove that lighting produced electricity.
Franklin was also a prolific writer. He had published several papers including “Disertation on Liberty & Necessity” before publishing his first book at age 26, Poor Richards Almanac, which contains numerous popular sayings still common today, such as “a penny saved, a penny earned.” The Poor Richard series was so popular in its time that even John Paul Jones named his ship “Bonhomme Richard,” which defeated the British “Serapis,” after Franklin’s memorable character.
By age 42, Franklin had earned enough money from his business ventures and inventions that he retired and devoted much of his time to his political activities. As a member of the Second Continental Congress, he was assigned to the Committee of Five along with John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and a young Thomas Jefferson who was only 33 at the time. The committee was charged with the duty of writing the Declaration of Independence. After signing the Declaration, Franklin’s diplomatic skills were called upon, and he was dispatched to France to negotiate a critical alliance with the European power.
Franklin was one of 17 children, and the father of three. His first son was born out of wedlock to an unknown mother. He later took Deborah Read Rogers as his common law wife where he fathered a daughter and second son. His second son died at a young age while Franklin disowned his eldest son for siding with the British. Franklin lived
his long life without ever speaking to his son after
their disagreement.
Franklin also earned a reputation as a philanderer, often seen in the European brothels while serving as America’s Ambassador of France. Although Franklin claims his wife changed his habits and made him an honest man, history has accounted for this part of his life differently.
It is certain however, that Franklin was well respected by his peers and his contributions to the Revolution were instrumental in shaping American independence. Even at age 82, he was deeply embroiled in the intellectual debate of America’s future, and the type of government that would follow. He attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia where the delegates carefully debated every word of the Constitution.
Franklin believed, as did many of the delegates, that the newly crafted Constitution designed to replace the Articles of Confederation gave the federal government too much power, and he fought hard to shape it differently. Many of the delegates relied upon Franklin’s aged wisdom and held back their own support because of his concerns. But a few months before the final passage of the document, Franklin made one of his last political contributions to the new nation and threw his full support behind its passage.
“… I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; … Thus I consent Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. … On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.”
Franklin himself did not deliver the speech but rather asked a colleague, James Wilson, to read it for him. His age prohibited him from standing very long. He was too feeble to even walk in and out of the hall each day. Instead he had prisoners carry him into the Great Hall and prop him up in a chair. Most of his contributions were written by him and delivered by another. But when the man who had seen the Revolution from beginning to end gave approval for the great document, it signaled a new era, and the beginning of a remarkable new nation.
The Constitution was eventually adopted by the delegation, and as Franklin sat watching each member sign their name on the nation’s new Constitution, he remarked to one of his colleagues that during the debates he often noticed the painting on the back of the Convention Presidents chair, where George Washington presided. It was the painting of half a sun. Franklin told his colleague that he had wondered if the sun was rising or setting, and now he was certain it was rising.
Franklin’s last political role was as President of the Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. He was one of several of the Founding Fathers that fought against the practice throughout the debates believing slavery contradicted the principles of individual liberty the nation was founded upon. But it was one political battle they were unable to win. Still, Franklin never gave up and even submitted resolutions abolishing slavery to the new government in his last two years of life. He died April 17th, 1790.
As Franklin left Independence Hall after signing the United States Constitution, a young citizen inquired: “What kind of government did you give us? A monarchy or a republic?” Franklin responded “A republic, if you can keep it!”

Doctors Ready to Quit
By TERRY JONES
News Analysis by IBD | Posted Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:30 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=337909690110379
Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors’ own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.
It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration’s claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.
The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors’ positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.
Major findings included:
• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration’s claims that doctors are part of an “unprecedented coalition” supporting a medical overhaul.
It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a “majority of physicians want public and private insurance options,” and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday’s front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline “Doctors Go For Obama’s Reform.”
Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the “association representing the nation’s physicians” and what “many still regard as the country’s premier lobbying force” — is “lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama’s sweeping plan.”
The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA’s support of Democrats’ proposed health care overhaul.
• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.
More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll’s finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.
• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered “no” when asked if they believed “the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better.”
This response is consistent with critics who complain that the administration and congressional Democrats have yet to explain how, even with the current number of physicians and nurses, they can cover more people and lower the cost at the same time.
The only way, the critics contend, is by rationing care — giving it to some and denying it to others. That cuts against another claim by plan supporters — that care would be better.
IBD/TIPP’s finding that many doctors could leave the business suggests that such rationing could be more severe than even critics believe. Rationing is one of the drawbacks associated with government plans in countries such as Canada and the U.K. Stories about growing waiting lists for badly needed care, horror stories of care gone wrong, babies born on sidewalks, and even people dying as a result of care delayed or denied are rife.
In this country, the number of doctors is already lagging population growth.
From 2003 to 2006, the number of active physicians in the U.S. grew by just 0.8% a year, adding a total of 25,700 doctors.
Recent population growth has been 1% a year. Patients, in short, are already being added faster than physicians, creating a medical bottleneck.
The great concern is that, with increased mandates, lower pay and less freedom to practice, doctors could abandon medicine in droves, as the IBD/TIPP Poll suggests. Under the proposed medical overhaul, an additional 47 million people would have to be cared for — an 18% increase in patient loads, without an equivalent increase in doctors. The actual effect could be somewhat less because a significant share of the uninsured already get care.
Even so, the government vows to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from health care spending to pay for reform, which would encourage a flight from the profession.
The U.S. today has just 2.4 physicians per 1,000 population — below the median of 3.1 for members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the official club of wealthy nations.
Adding millions of patients to physicians’ caseloads would threaten to overwhelm the system. Medical gatekeepers would have to deny care to large numbers of people. That means care would have to be rationed.
“It’s like giving everyone free bus passes, but there are only two buses,” Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, told the Associated Press.
Hope for a surge in new doctors may be misplaced. A recent study from the Association of American Medical Colleges found steadily declining enrollment in medical schools since 1980.
The study found that, just with current patient demand, the U.S. will have 159,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2025. Unless corrected, that would make some sort of medical rationing or long waiting lists almost mandatory.
Experiments at the state level show that an overhaul isn’t likely to change much.
On Monday came word from the Massachusetts Medical Society — a group representing physicians in a state that has implemented an overhaul similar to that under consideration in Washington — that doctor shortages remain a growing problem.
Its 2009 Physician Workforce Study found that:
• The primary care specialties of family medicine and internal medicine are in short supply for a fourth straight year.
• The percentage of primary care practices closed to new patients is the highest ever recorded.
• Seven of 18 specialties — dermatology, neurology, urology, vascular surgery and (for the first time) obstetrics-gynecology, in addition to family and internal medicine — are in short supply.
• Recruitment and retention of physicians remains difficult, especially at community hospitals and with primary care.
A key reason for the doctor shortages, according to the study, is a “lingering poor practice environment in the state.”
In 2006, Massachusetts passed its medical overhaul — minus a public option — similar to what’s being proposed on a national scale now. It hasn’t worked as expected. Costs are higher, with insurance premiums rising 22% faster than in the U.S. as a whole.
“Health spending in Massachusetts is higher than the United States on average and is growing at a faster rate,” according to a recent report from the Urban Institute.
Other states with government-run or mandated health insurance systems, including Maine, Tennessee and Hawaii, have been forced to cut back services and coverage.
This experience has been repeated in other countries where a form of nationalized care is common. In particular, many nationalized health systems seem to have trouble finding enough doctors to meet demand.
In Britain, a lack of practicing physicians means the country has had to import thousands of foreign doctors to care for patients in the National Health Service.
“A third of (British) primary care trusts are flying in (general practitioners) from as far away as Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland” because of a doctor shortage, a recent story in the British Daily Mail noted.
British doctors, demoralized by long hours and burdensome rules, simply refuse to see patients at nights and weekends.
Likewise, Canadian physicians who have to deal with the stringent rules and income limits imposed by that country’s national health plan have emigrated in droves to other countries, including the U.S.