I’ve started this post at least five times and trashed each one due the frustration of trying to list all the reasons why HR3200 is not reform but is just plain wrong for the American health care industry. Instead of fixing those aspects of the industry that result in high costs and lack of coverage for millions, it totally dismantles everything we have come to depend on that makes our health care the best available. It puts the Secretary of Health and Human Services in place as a health care dictator who will control every aspect of medical care in America. HR3200 will not lower costs, will destroy the private health insurance industry, will dictate what treatment is covered and who is eligible to receive that care, will ration care to reduce costs, will reduce payments to doctors and hospitals, will cost trillions of dollars of taxpayers money (again), and will offer only one source for medical treatment for everyone, that being the government controlled "public option".

Our medical care in America is without equal in the world despite the claims from the left that it ranks 24^th worldwide. If you examine the World Health Organization’s statistics that ranking includes cost and percentage of population not eligible, among other non-quality factors that do not have any bearing on actual quality of care. When mortality rate, cure rate, immediacy of care, advanced diagnostics, doctor/patient ratio, and similar quality indications are considered, America ranks number one in the world. We’ve all heard Obama preaching about all the unnecessary tests, surgical procedures, re-admittances, and medications that are being used. We’ve heard him lie about how doctors make decisions to perform unnecessary surgeries just because they are more lucrative. What he is really saying is your doctor will no longer be able to perform the tests he might deem necessary, and that your doctor is a butcher who would sooner amputate limbs than treat a hangnail. In reality, the primary care physicians who diagnose ailments such as infected tonsils are not the surgeons who perform tonsilectomies, making his claims not only false but stupid.

HR3200 will destroy the American standard of care and result in a system similar to Great Britain’s medical system. This is not necessary, but that is what will be forced upon us by Obama and the Deficrats. Their ultimate goal is not the improvement of care nor expanded coverage, but is the seizure and control of not only one-sixth of the annual GDP amounting to roughly four trillion dollars, but control of nearly every part of a person’s life. What they eat, whether or not they use tobacco, the use of safety equipment such as seat belts, helmets, hearing protection, and safety glasses, the design of automobiles, bicycles, motorcycles, aircraft, toys, televisions, telephones, and appliances, all would fall under the realm of possible health hazards and would be regulated by the Deficratic government.

If lower costs, improved quality, and expanded coverage were the true purposes of health care reform efforts, there are much less expensive, less destructive actions that would surely result in attaining those goals. Eliminating the governmental regulations requiring universal coverage for such things as vericose vein treatments, accupuncture, substance abuse rehab, male pattern baldness, PMS, erectile disfunction, and depression, to name just a few, would go miles toward lowering the cost of a policy for those who did not need such care. Also, the fact that insurance is used to pay for almost 75% of all medical care accounts for drastic increases in the cost of care provided. When the cost of services is not subject to the influences of a free competitive market costs rise. If the patient were paying for the services rendered, the ability of the patient to go where it might cost less drives costs down due to competition. If the tax credits given to employers for providing medical insurance were given, instead, to the employees to buy their own health coverage or fund a Health Care Savings Account, an environment of competition would be fostered in the insurance market where virtually none exists today. It is government regulation, just as it was in the housing market collapse, that is the source of most of the health care industry’s ailments. We can see how well the housing market has been repaired. Do we want the same hacks fixing our health care system?

Obama and the Deficrats are not after health care reform. They are elitist socialists who can’t live with America’s greatness and exceptionalism. They see our beloved nation as oppressive and a bane on the rest of the world. It matters not to them that every nation in the world wishes they could be more like America, that Canadians come here when their own "public option" medical system tells them they will have to wait six months for cancer surgery, or that women give birth in parks and alleys in the UK because there are no beds available in hospitals. No, they couldn’t care less about the health care we have available or how much worse others are with the same system they are creating. They want you under their boot heel. They want to de-evolve America down to the level of the rest of the world. After all, if we have it so much better, that must mean we are depriving someone of something better than they have.

It is the basic premise of the individual having freedom to choose what type of life he will pursue that has been responsible for the advancements America alone has accomplished. To destroy this in favor of "social justice" and redistribution of wealth will doom not only America, but the entire world to a future of less instead of more.

Glenn Flowers

POSTSCRIPT: Ever notice that the one thing government does fairly well is destruction and death? It makes for a really decent military, but not an efficient health care system.

The globally accepted myth of man made climate change has as its major source of supposed evidence the UN reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC. They state in their reports that they created a computer model of Earth’s atmosphere allowing variation of several key components and then ran those models with ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses, particularly carbon dioxide. They say that they then collected actual climate data from sources around the globe showing actual surface temperatures, temperatures aloft, and ocean temperatures and that these actual data correlated with the output of the models. The results? Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing a swift and significant rise in Earth’s average temperatures and that this trend will continue to the point of being disastrous if we don’t work to drastically limit carbon dioxide emissions immediately.

Well, besides the fact that CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, despite the fact that CO2 is only 33 parts per million in our atmosphere, despite the fact that there has been a slight temperature decrease every year since 1997, the IPCC insists that recent records validate their model’s predictions. They don’t and the reason is their model is seriously flawed and was grossly misused and manipulated to give a set of desired output data.

Since climate modeling was a major component in their research the computer model needs a bit of scrutiny to determine the validity of its creation, usage, and resulting accuracy, or lack thereof. A computer model is a program that simulates all aspects, or at very least all major aspects, of an environment or situation and allows for the manipulation of important aspects to determine the change caused by these variations for the purpose of predicting the future characteristics or to train people in the changes caused by these variables. One example of a computer model is a flight simulator program. Would be pilots are able to learn the basics of piloting by studying the effect of their actions on a reliable, consistant set of data that reacts like an airplane would according to changing input. To be able to expect reliable output from computer models, the program needs to be as close to identical to the real life environment being modeled as is possible. All known aspects of the environment must be closely replicated in the modeling software or the model is just that much more inaccurate and incapable of giving reliable results. If a flight simulating program left out the ability to adjust engine power, a major subject in flight training, your piloting skills learned from the program would be severely lacking to the point of being dangerous, even deadly. Likewise, if a model of Earth’s atmosphere were to ignore the fact that precipitation exists, and thereby ignore all of precipitation’s effects, you could not reasonably expect an accurate depiction of Earth’s actual atmosphere. Also, if a model includes assumptions or beliefs that are not substantiated in reality or accepted theory, the output is corrupted and is not usable. A model should, by definition, be just that, an accurate, all inclusive, reliable duplicate of that which is to be modeled. The less a model exactly portrays reality, the less it can be expected to give valid output. If properly designed, the output of a model should reflect real observable data when real data is input. This verifies the ability of the program to accurately model the climate and changes caused by varying the input data.

The climate model created by the IPCC disregarded many aspects of Earth’s climate, such as the existance and effect of precipitation, the existance of CO2 sinks such as the oceans, and the energy output fluctuation of the sun and its effects. The IPCC model also made assumptions that could not be documented in historical records or by scientific practices, and used other cause/effect mechanisms that they knew to be false such as programming their model to create a larger temperature rise with increase in altitude than at the surface which has been known to be the opposite for decades. They also assumed that certain aerosols acted as greenhouse gasses in trapping certain frequencies of sunlight in the atmosphere when they have been proven to actually reflect those wavelengths back into space. They also completely ignored the fluctuation of solar energy that occurs with the cycles of sunspot activity. They disregarded H2O doubling where two water molecules combine to effect the atmosphere in a radically different manner, they disregarded the fact that CO2 tends to absorb pollutants such as carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide, and they puposely reversed the cause/effect action of warming air temperatures and the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Needless to say, the climate model used to bolster the claims of man made climate change was not, in any sense of the definition, a valid model of Earth’s climatology, and is, therefore, useless in predicting not just present climate conditions, but especially future predictions of Earth’s climate status and the cause thereof. To achieve some type of correlation between modeled and observed data, charts of recorded temperatures and rates of rise were edited, some data was removed, data from different locations were cherry picked for their compliance, and a lot of techno-babble was used to confuse others while attempting to retain the semblence of scientifically deduced results.

Many of the scientists and technicians who collected actual observed data for use in the IPCC study, and those who made contributions to the model’s creation, have expressed great dismay and outright indignation at the results and interpretative reports issued by the IPCC and have publicly come out in direct opposition to the IPCC, the theory of man made climate change, and have called into question the motives, methods, and capabilities of those doing the analysis and writing the reports for the IPCC.

All other factors aside, the old computer addage of, "garbage in garbage out" certainly seems to apply to the IPCC climate model itself and thus to the results and their interpretation, and certainly lends creedence to those experts who disagree with the theory of man made climate change who happen outnumber the climate change proponents by a factor of over 15 to 1.

The UN, in response to the outcry from scientists worldwide, implemented a "control" or validation factor into their research by creating a second panel of scientists to analyze the same data used by the first panel and come to an independent conclusion. This panel, the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change, or the NIPCC, was not told of the results of the first panel and were not given any specific mission except to study the data and form a conclusion. Their result was that there is not enough understanding of the workings of the climate, not enough empirical data, too many assumptions, and a model that is incomplete and seriously flawed to be able to reach any kind of reliable decision on whether man is the cause of any change in the climate, or, even if he is, if it is a detrimental effect to Earth and its inhabitants. In short, they just can’t make any valid conclusions because the science is lacking. When told of the IPCC’s results and conclusions, the NIPCC issued an opinion that 1. The IPCC, being a government subsidized organization, were pre-disposed to prove that climate change is both man made and disastrous in nature, 2. That in order to come to the conclusions they did, the IPCC had to have engaged in non-scientific, unethical practices of manipulation and fabrication of data, and 3. The IPCC can not and should not be considered an authority on climatology or its causes. You will not, though, see this second panel’s results being promoted or widely publicized because they don’t support the agenda of the UN for global dominance and power.

The UN, the IPCC group of publishing scientists, and those who have promoted so many extreme social changes and financial expenditures in the name of an unprovable, apocolyptic theory should all be publicly exposed and prosecuted for their incompetance and reckless imposition of harm and needless life and social changes on the world population, and stripped of whatever authority they exercise.

Glenn Flowers

There is mounting evidence and scientists telling their true role in the study that leads one to the conclusion that the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, the group that created the study and report that really started the stampede toward acceptance of the global warming fear, not only handpicked evidence that would tend to prove global warming exists, but fine tuned certain variables used in their climate modeling, and totally eliminated other major variables, all in an effort to keep the cushy, all expenses paid jetset lifestyle paid for by the U.N. You see, these scientists were hired by the U.N., not to find whether or not global warming was real, but to study the effects it would have. Forget the basic question giving the world the scare, just accept the premise and tell us what's going to happen.

After the release of the report that doomed us all, the U.N. did the right and proper thing, for once. They put together a B team to act as a proofer for the theory. This second group of scientists were not paid, nor did they travel the globe gathering data as the original team had. The B team was given the same data used by the A team but were not told of their conclusions. The B team also had the ability to contact the associated scientists and agencies worldwide that had collected the data and participated in the first report and question them on their involvement. The B Team Report is an expose of the first teams bias, incompetence, and willingness to go to the ends to prove their claims and retain their lucrative positions. Read the team B report here...

http://mysite.verizon.net/res7zx3v/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/nipcc_final.pdf