WHITE HOUSE EMAILS--QUESTIONS ABOUT PRIVACY RIGHTS

JUST BEFORE I WAS READY TO POST THIS ARTICLE, I CHECKED MY HOTMAIL ACCOUNT. THERE WAS AN EMAIL FROM FRANK STELLA, AN AFT REPRESENTATIVE. HE FORWARDED TO AFT MEMBERS DAVID AXELROD'S EMAIL . WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. THINK ABOUT IT.

***************************************************************************



The flap between Major Garrett and Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs extends right into my home. Coincidentally I happened to be listening to the news conference live when Garrett asked his question. I received that day the same unsolicited email that Garrett alluded to and that Gibbs ingenuously questioned—publicly impugning Garrett’s honesty. Gibbs doubted that such a thing could happen. IT DID.

I’ve got a lot of questions, but here are a basic few:


1. How did the White House get my email address?
2. Why is the White House sending me emails? I didn’t sign up for them.
3. Since the White House cannot purge emails because of federal regulations, into what kind of “file” have I been relegated?
4. Since this email is no more than SPAM, why didn’t my hotmail filter send it immediately to Junk Mail?
5. What right has the White House using these email addresses as an advertising tool to spread propaganda? I specifically use the word propaganda because of the content of the email which I will copy and paste on this post so you can see what David Axelrod, Obama’s political advisor and sometime spokesman is up to.
6. And maybe in the bigger scheme of things, this is the most important question: Since the White House, Congress, and much of the media is complaining that the Town Hall meetings are attended by people who are organizing against healthcare (just as they said about the Tea Parties), what would they call this behavior????

If this isn’t organizing on a big scale, what is it? And unlike the websites that suggest people show up at meetings to voice their opinions an TO WHICH INDIVIDUALS GO OF THEIR OWN VOLITION, this organizational effort is unsolicited, unwanted, and at least in my case, against my will and A BASIC INVASION OF MY PRIVACY.

This tactic is being perpetrated on us by the same people who objected, as an invasion of privacy, to finding out who was checking out library books that describe, among other things, how to construct bombs. You’ve got a right to learn how to build bombs, apparently, but no right to voice your opinion if it’s not in line with the Obama administration. Gives one pause to think.
*******************************************************************************
PS LOOK AT THE SALUTATION. I AM NOT DAVID AXELROD’S FRIEND!

*******************************************************************************

Dear Friend,

This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”

So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

Thanks,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:



8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform
1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
2. We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf





Unsubscribe Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

Technorati Tags:
politics, politicians, Obama, Congress, White House, commentary, opinion, political blogs, blogs, Not With a Whimper, White House, David Axelrod, AFT, Frank Stella, retiress, healthcare, emails, Major Garrett, Robert Gibbs, freedom, privacy, Constitution, amendments, spam, Congress, propoganda, lists, Tea Parties, unions, education,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

SEE FOR YOURSELF THE WHITE HOUSE REQUEST FOR YOU TO INFORM ON YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS

JUST IN CASE YOU THINK THE NEWS IS EXAGGERATED, LOOK AT THIS VIDEO RIGHT OFF THE WHITE HOUSE BLOG. ONE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THIS BLOG IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

Technorati Tags:
politics, commentary, politicians, Obama, White House, blogs, White House blog, informers, emails, spying, privacy, Freedom of Information, news,
Add to: Technorati Digg del.icio.us Yahoo BlinkList Spurl reddit Furl

BARAK OBAMA--THE HALF-TRUTH PRESIDENT

As Barak Obama continues his assault on the American People regarding health care, he is beginning to show his true side, and it is desperately pathetic. So used to the unending adulation of his public, he has regressed to a whining and complaining little boy who sputters half truths in order to get his way.


In the last few days he has emphatically stated that Republicans will not go along with him because this will be his "Waterloo." He accuses them of trying to "torpedo" his plan in order to gain politically. Obama claims the Republicans want no change to health care in the country. I've heard Republicans and others suggest for years that tort reform would work on the problem of malpractice lawsuits and all the accompanying costs involved in doctors and hospitals protecting themselves. That was a big part of President George W. Bush's plan to work on health care--a plan firmly trounced by the Democats in Congress.

This issue does not appear to be addressed in the new bill. To see who stands to gain, look at people like John Edwards for whom medical malpractice was his road to millionairedom.


Additionally, Obama has totally disregarded the 57 blue dog Democrats who realize this health care plan is, at the very least, fiscally irresponsible. He never mentions dissension within his own party. The truth is there are doubters on both sides of the aisle; he tells us half the story.


Obviously, President Obama, the man who was going to bring transparency to the presidency, doesn't even want to tell us the truth.


Let's deal with the bill itself--a bill presented in such a hazy way that one would expect it will fix every problem in health care without taking away our choices, freedoms, or money (except for the rich who won't miss it anyway). Here perhaps we should be grateful for half truths because most of what we are hearing are out and out lies!


Rahm Emmanuel is still pushing for a vote before the recess, but members of Congress have not read read the bill. That's exactly what happened with the stimulus package. How can one vote intelligently without having read and digested the information? How do I know they haven't read the bill--aside from the obvious that the President wants the vote before the recess but the bill is not yet completed?


On page 389 of the proposed legislation, there are references to the "mentally retarded." Agree or not, this is now considered a politically incorrect term bringing all kinds of criticism when used in movies, etc. Yet Congress allows this wording in its bill and NO ONE has objected to the term. I guess no one read as far as page 389.


The age where there must be a determination about using aggressive procedures to fight illness is 65. You read that right. Yet the claim is that AARP supports the legislation. Why would they want to hurt their membership? Do the older supporters of Obama and his plan realize that their lives may be sacrificed in order to save younger people? Shall we call Obama the Soylent Green President?


Who makes the determination concerning aggressive care? The person suggested is the Surgeon General. Who is the Surgeon General? The President has nominated a doctor whose practice has done wonderful things for poor people. She runs clinics. She is well respected and is obviously a good woman and hopefully an excellent physician. BUT she is not associated with teaching or research hospitals. Her experience is not with the cutting edge techniques consistently being developed, and there is no way that she can be up to speed in these areas. Yet she and her staff (who selects them?) will make health care decisions for the entire country--health care decisions that should be made by the patient and his/her physician. When President Obama says CHOICE, he obviously is not talking about choice of the individual; he is talking about choice of the government. ANOTHER TWISTING OF THE TRUTH.

Speaking about sacrifice, let's look at how this kind of health care works in other areas.

Massachusetts with Mitt Romney's health care design is going broke due to the exhorbitant costs. The projected cost and the real cost had nothing in common. Waits to see doctors are long, and tests are scheduled weeks down the road.

The cancer death rates in Canada are 17% higher than in the U.S. despite a smaller population. Long wait times for tests mean long wait times for treatment. The same cancer death rate difference exists in England. Canadians who are able come to the U.S. for improved treatment.

Canadians also come here for certain appliances such as hearing aids. At a dinner in Montreal, I was discussing my digital hearing aids which are more sensitive and versatile. Canadians are offered old fashioned analog hearing aids. The ability to pay for the more expensive and more sensitive digital aids does not factor into any decision. Analog is cheaper and the government needs to take away choice in order to supply everyone equally.

When we were in Ireland in the fall of '07, we read of two health scandals in government-run health care United Kingdom. A hospital in England, in order to cut laundry costs, simply flipped the sheets when one patient left and before the next arrived. The result was a staph infection epidemic! The second scandal concerned Ireland's return to do-it-yourself dentistry by people with toothache pain so severe they couldn't suffer through the long waits to see the dentist. They resorted to many ways of removing their teeth including the old string on the doorknob game. If you find this hard to believe, don't. It is the whole truth.

The President talks about taxing only the rich to pay for this plan. He neglected to add that he is considering an excise tax on plans that go above and beyond the government sponsored plan. Here he will tax the insurance companies that offer "gold-plated" plans. That means if you or I are paying more for better coverage, our audacity will be punished. If we feel insurance is the way we wish to spend our money, we will be punished in order to pay for people who choose to spend their money in other ways--a large percentage of the uninsured are young people who do not see health insurance as a personal necessity. They will lose their right to choose as well. Do you see your liberty being threatened little by little? You should. Bye Bye "gold-plated" plans. If you were an insurance company paying extra taxes, would you continue to offer them?

As a matter of fact, bye bye insurance companies. Not today, but down the road. They will be unable to compete with government sponsored plans.



Let's deal with another problem with truth. The Franking Commission which decides when Congress-sponsored mail to constituents travels postage free, has decided that the term "government-sponsored health care" is a partisan term and disqualifies for free postage any Congressman or Senator who employs that term. The appropriate term, "public option," is to be used instead. How's that for Freedom of Speech?! How's that for issuing half truths or lies (you make the call) to the public. Keep 'em ignorant and you'll keep 'em under your thumb.


Here's an interesting lack of truthfulness. This health plan is supposedly designed to give all Americans the best of care. When an amendment was offered to insist that the President and members of Congress sign on to this plan, the amendment was not even included in the bill. The people crafting this wonderous plan all know the truth, and they are not going for it any more than we should go for it.

One last point (although I can go on) before this post gets any longer (and it could). Obama's people keep talking about 47 million uninsured. There is a saying, "Figures never lie but liers figure."

That statistic includes people who can afford insurance but choose not to have it (primarily younger people). They will be forced by law to buy insurance.

That number includes illegal immigrants in this country. Do you want your tax money to make sure the people who are here by breaking the law are supported by law to have health care while yours may very well be compromised in order to do that?

That statistic, a yearly statistic, includes anyone who does not have insurance for even one day--a person who changes jobs, for instance, or a person who opts for different coverage and there is a lag between the time when one ends and another begins.

The whole truth is that we are not getting the whole truth. But if these proposals become law, we will be giving up choices about our health, end-of-life issues, and our money. To me this means giving up freedom to which our Federal Government has no right. Technorati Tags:
politics, commentary, health care, Obama, President, taxes, Rahm Emmanuel, Congress, legislation, AARP, Canada, socialized medicine, public option, Franking Commission, England, Ireland, UK, cancer, death rates, MA, health plans, Not With a Whimper, political blogs
Add to: Technorati Digg del.icio.us Yahoo BlinkList Spurl reddit Furl

READ THIS AND WEEP--U.S. RELEASES IRAQI LINKED TO FIVE GI DEATHS

When you read this article remember who our commander-in-chief is. Then weep.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31183312/ns/world_news-conflict_in_iraq/from/ET

Please also remember that President Bush did not support al-Malaki to begin with, but the Iraqi people voted for him as Prime Minister (hmmmm...the people voted in the wrong man who is leading the country down the wrong path--gosh, that sounds familiar)

The "militant" released allegedly has ties to Iran and to the "cleric" Mutada al Sadr. The Iraqis bill this "catch and release" as part of a "wider reconciliation plan." The militant's group will hand over heavy weapons at some point as the reconciliation continues. Also some British hostages will be released. Yeah, right. When do they get their milk and cookies?

So let's get this straight--a terrorist responsible for killing one GI on site and taking four others to a remote site and killing them, who was captured in 2006 when Bush was commander-in-chief, will be released by the U.S. in 2009 when Obama is commander-in-chief to the Iraqis who will free him as part of a reconciliation with the very people who want to bring down the Iraqi government. Does that sound like a good plan to any thinking person? And fowhat did those five GIs give their lives?

Technorati Tags:
Obama, commander-in-chief, Iraq, war, Bush, President, al-Malaki, GI, death, Iran, al Sadr, war, Not with a Whimper, blogs, commentary army miitary
Add to: Technorati Digg del.icio.us Yahoo BlinkList Spurl reddit Furl

BARBARA BOXER IS AT IT AGAIN--INSULTING AND CONDESCENDING

This video is Barbara Boxer showing her true colors. This Senator from California is a disgrace to everything the country stands for, yet she is making and voting for rules by which we all must live. Trust the government to speak for me? No.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNFWRRaTL5I

Mark Levin is Priceless

You've got to listen to Mark Levin on Al Franken.



Technorati Tags:
Mark Levin, Al Franken, politics, commentary, Not With a Whimper, videos
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

OBAMA "PLAYS" THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Some time ago I wrote of Obama's attitude toward people who take their fiscal responsibilities seriously—punishingly tax them into oblivion to support those who don't or won't accept their own responsibilities. Goodbye middle class. The same destructive approach is now being used against big financial companies.

Under the Obama plan, big companies like Citi and Goldman Sachs would not be forbidden; instead they would be regulated so strictly it would be a disadvantage to be a big company. The Federal Reserve would be in charge of the scrutiny. We've already seen how incompetently the fed protected us from the current financial crisis. Why should we expect more now?

What's really interesting, however, is the Administration's explanation of the plans. They will not forbid; they will just make existence inordinately complex and expensive so that the big companies cannot or will not expand.

“Without banning them, we're providing some pretty heavy penalties for entering the top group of institutions that could pose a risk to the entire financial system,” said Diana Farrell, deputy director of the White House's National Economic Council.

“The regulator might say to a large institution,’ Make sure there is very good reason to get that big, or that interconnected, or that complex because the penalties will wipe out any advantages, such as lower cost of capital, you might have,'” she said.

So much for the free enterprise system. So much for capitalism. Say goodbye to risk taking too. What would be the point of investing in a company threatened with severe penalties if it grows too big (and successful)? It would be like buying a Pontiac today. Would you really trust mechanical and parts support from a government-owned car company that will no longer manufacture Pontiacs? Buyers beware!

Think of the regulator. Who will decide on the new rules of the road for these companies? Upon what economic theories will decisions be based? Where is the threshold over which no company may cross? Will there exist the same “moving barrier” that was erected for the banks to hurdle in the shape of “tests” the government devised? Are we dealing with economic laws or social engineering? In the end, the Obama administration is protecting one entity—itself. It cannot be blamed for destroying these financial behemoths. In less refined parlance, that's called CYA.

There's such a predictable pattern to Obama's programs.

1 Replace private business with a government entity or
Create or extend a governmental hierarchy to oversee this entity
2 Develop punitive and expensive regulations to weaken private industry or
Make sure the government entity appears more attractive than the private entity
3 Over time observe the private business' inability to sustain itself and fail
4 Socialize the industry

We've seen the pattern in the banking industry where the government would not accept loan re-payment thereby keeping banks under the government's spreading thumb. Then “tests” were developed to check on each bank's success. When too many passed, new tests were developed.

We've seen the pattern in the auto industry where unions were mollified and Fiat was the winner. Bondholders were shown that the rule of law only applies when the Administration needs it. We will see how government-backed GMAC does as prime lender to the industry, and we'll see if the auto company can turn a profit on its own. We'll also see if the jobs lost by dealers, and the dealerships lost by the community (and collateral damage to other business in the community) will be replaced in the new economic structure.

In Healthcare, we'll have to watch as care is rationed, private insurers go under, those offering their employees benefits are penalized in some fashion, and employee benefits are taxed.

We better wake up. We better get in touch with our representatives and wake them up. We better do this before it's too late.
Technorati Tags:
Obama, banks, finances, economy, politics, commentary, opinion, politicians, socialism, government ownership, auto industry, GM, Chrysler, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Federal Reserve, Fiat, GMAC
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |