• Recurring and predictable devastation in highly vulnerable natural habitats of Florida, the Gulf coast, the Outer Banks, California and elsewhere should not be eligible for Federally sponsored insurance.  Life is choices. 
• If our national budget is not brought under control soon, we will see stagflation followed by Depression...and then War.  That's history...which is often the future.
• The New York Times predictably urges slamming "Health Care Reform" through Congress with an illegal tactic that is guaranteed to further polarize our government and our citizens.  As always in recent years: ARTICULATE, ARROGANT, ASININE. 
• The Obama administration is wrong on backing off on the European anti-missle shield under pressure from Russia, on allowing our enemies within and without this country to define and demonize enhanced interrogation practices as "torture", on burying the reality of  the "War on Terror" in banalities, and on continuing to enable Israel to torpedo the Peace process there with more illegal settlements.  And it is at sea with regard to our goals in Afghanistan...while our soldiers and the Afghan people get torn apart.  Wake Up!
• Cuba is and will remain a Communist country as long as we continue our embargo between the Cuban people and our democracy.  To paraphrase: "Mr Obama, Tear Down This Wall!"
• Mexico has declared surrender in their drug war.  That only increases our troubles.  And it makes it all the more imperative that we control our borders. 
• North and South Korea are engaging.  Tell me again why we shouldn't do so also, while believing not a word of what the North tells us without verification? 
• Some of our European sometime allies are Socialist countries.  It works for them.  It will never be allowed in America. 
• Is the resistance to needed Immigration Reform partly due to the fact that Latinos are largely Roman Catholics?  We certainly have seen that before.
• Election Law Reform is once again in ferment.  A Federal Judge has overturned Connecticut's reform legislation.  And the U.S. Supreme Court will shortly take up one of its own decisions regarding limitations on corporate election contributions.  The Freedom of Speech issue is very relevant here.  Could we not pass needed reform simply by restricting the duration of electioneering?  Sounds good to me. 
• Ethics and Morality in government and in society has become an oxymoron.  It's time for the pendulum to begin a long swing in the other direction. 
• And then there is the reported related surge in Athiesm.  As morality goes down, it's uncomfortable to believe in a Just God ("Vengance is Mine, Sayeth the Lord.  I Shall Repay").  Meanwhile, my view is that an avowed athiest is so irrational that he or she should not be allowed to sign legal papers. 
• Public "Education".  No, I won't go there this time.  But stay tuned...and meanwhile read the article in the August 31st edition of The New Yorker, entitled "Worst in Class". 
• Finally, I am working here with the aid of a product which should be considered tortious under the doctrine of Product Liability: "defective, unreasonably dangerous": The Internet.  This entire innovation needs a Mulligan in order to establish even a modicum of safety and security.  Meanwhile, "Caveat Emptor". 

• India.  Here is a nation that has embraced Democracy, thanks to Ghandi and the British.  Here "the light is worth the candle", as we wisely strengthen our relationship at all levels. 
• China, not so "inscrutable".  A massive number of people held together through many centuries by force of empire, including now Communism, their leaders will always do anything to stay in power and in control.  We can have successful interests there, if we insist on a quid pro quo; but we will never have friends there. 
• The entire Muslim World is now in ferment, with reactionary forces (alleging the "Will of Allah" through their interpretation of the Koran) currently continuing to hold sway over freedom and fairness.  The product of this ferment will not be ready for decades.  Meanwhile, our only realistic recourse in that area of the world is the pursuit of self-interest, leavened with altruism only where the indigenous people embrace it.  And "self-interest" includes oil, and self-defense.  Unfortunately, that is not how the Obama Administration is conducting its foreign policy in that region...resulting in loss of respect, loss of influence, and loss of American lives. 
• Israel and Palestine.  Here is the most cynical of political activities - outside of Europe.  Israel does not want peace if that means compromising the Biblical integrity of its homeland and of Jerusalem...so it continues to build settlements that make peace impossible.  The Palestinians and their Arab supporters do not want peace if that means the survival of Israel in their midst...so they continue to demand the "right of return" for the millions of Palestinians now in diaspora throughout the Middle East.  They deserve eadh other unless they end this game.  And the U.S., apart from guaranteeing the survival of Israel, should expect and enable little more. 
• Europe.  With many centuries of practice in intrigue and cynicism...and wounds, these countries look to America for support and protection.  Once we are perceived as being unable to provide this, as is now beginning to be the case, they will turn to any other available "protector", including Russia...always the wounded bear on the prowl. 
• England and we have the same DNA.  We can depend on that - unless it too turns Muslim! 
• Latin America is as seriously infected at its core as America was before and for 100 years after the Civil War...and until Blacks were made truly free through Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's.  In Latin America, the infection is the absence of land reform, enabled in part by the studied neutrality of the Catholic Church in the matter...a disgrace, in my opinion. 
• Africa is still in the hands of colonial powers, some unchanged and some with locally grown surrogates.  But little has changed in many of the nations and regions with respect to despotism vs democracy.  A real shame.  But America should spend little of our resources there except on a "quid pro quo" basis until the political realities change, nation by nation. 
• America.  We are now also wounded, not as much by the ourtageous financial developments of the last year...and the feckless and also self-serving "treatments"...as by the fact that the American people are now a "house divided".  That's the bad news.  The good news is that the division is about 80% / 20% in favor of those who remember the founding principles of America.  All the 80% need to do is to make their position clearly known...and to throw the current bums leading us out. 
• And how can we not include the Catholic Church in this survey of power centers of the world?  All is not well there, thanks to the all-too-human Catholic Hierarchy.  See my offerings under Catholic Church in the Abortion... Category.  And now we read of another exercise in chutzpa: "Diocese Wants Scalia To Look At Case" (The Day Saturday, Aug. 29, 2009, pB4).  Wrong on two counts.  First, it should be insulting to all Catholics to approach a sitting Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for favorable action specifically because he is a Catholic; and Justice Scalia should also be insulted.  Secondly, the arguments offered by attorneys for the Diocese of Bridgeport spuriously allege protection under the Religion clause of the First Amendment and allege that the issues in the "civil case" of rampant Clergy Sex Abuse should defer to " internal church decisions about priest assignments."  Well, attorneys are trained to argue anything.  But churchmen  are expected to hold to a Higher Authority.  The issue of Clergy Sex Abuse should have been handled throughout under Criminal Law and not under Civil Law.  And the priests' superiors who protected them should have been indicted for Obstruction of Justice.  "CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?"

Chances of health compromise take another blow

WASHINGTON – A leading GOP negotiator on health care struck a further blow to fading chances of a bipartisan compromise by saying Democratic proposals would restrict medical choices and make the country's "finances sicker without saving you money."

The criticism from Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., echoed that of many opponents of the Democratic plans under consideration in Congress. But Enzi's judgment was especially noteworthy because he is one of only three Republicans who have been willing to consider a bipartisan bill in the Senate.

In the Republicans' weekly radio and Internet address on Saturday, Enzi said any health care legislation must lower medical costs for Americans without increasing deficits and the national debt.

"The bills introduced by congressional Democrats fail to meet these standards," he said.

Enzi, together with Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Olympia Snowe of Maine, has held talks with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. But the chance of a bipartisan breakthrough has diminished in the face of an effective public mobilization by opponents of Democratic proposals.

"I heard a lot of frustration and anger as I traveled across my home state this last few weeks," said Enzi, who has been targeted by critics for seeking to negotiate on legislation. "People in Wyoming and across the country are anxious about what Washington has in mind. This is big. This is personal. This is one of the most important debates of our lifetime."

Hours after the address aired, about 1,000 people rallied in New York City in support of an overhaul. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., told the crowd near Times Square about legislation that she said would lower costs for almost everyone.

Earlier, Enzi called for more competition among health insurers, for the ability of small businesses to band together across state lines to negotiate for lower-cost insurance plans, for tax breaks to help people buy insurance and for reducing malpractice lawsuits.

The debate over health care will resume in Washington after Labor Day, just two weeks after White House budget officials projected that deficits would total a staggering $9 trillion over the next 10 years. Though President Barack Obama has said he wants the total health care bill paid for without adding to the deficit, congressional budget officials have estimated that House health care proposals would cost the government more.

"The Democrats are trying to rush a bill through the process that will actually make our nation's finances sicker without saving you money," Enzi said.

Democrats also are calling for cuts in Medicare spending, using some of the savings to help uninsured workers. A House bill would result in a net reduction in Medicare of about $200 billion, though Obama has insisted the reductions would not cut benefits in the health program for the elderly.

But Enzi said: "This will result in cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the elderly to create new government programs."

He repeated Republican accusations that the Democrats' plans would result in less access to certain medical treatments, citing a proposed government board that would research the most effective medical practices.

"We're a nation of people who want the ability to choose what will best fit our families' needs and it should be that way with health care, too," Enzi said.

LETTER TO A FRIEND RE “HEALTH CARE AS A “PUBLIC GOOD”, A “RIGHT”, Aug 09

Dear Friend,

You are right to pose the basic question: “Is health care a private good or a public good?”  I might re-phrase the question using the term “public utility”. 

In contrast to police protection (where we are generally not allowed to protect ourselves) and fire protection (where our bad luck can easily become our neighbors’ bad luck) and community acquired illness / disease, and energy (where we cannot fend for ourselves)…and particularly where 50% of all health care costs are directly life-style related and certainly under our individual control…Health Care is and should be a Private Good subject to private / personal responsibility leavened with societal milk of human kindness. 

But if you want to make Health Care a Public Good, are you prepared to make health care personnel Federal employees with all the rights and benefits (including the right to collective bargaining) in keeping with that new status?  Or are you thinking more along the lines of indentured servitude?

GS

View Full Image

Chad Crowe

Subject: Health System Reform Message from AMA President J James Rohack

To: Delegates and Alternate Delegates

From: Jeremy A. Lazarus, MD, Speaker, and Andrew W. Gurman, MD, Vice Speaker

The following message is being sent to members of the HOD on behalf of AMA 
President J. James Rohack, MD.
- - -

We knew the battle for health system reform was going to be tough; but who could 
have predicted we’d be dealing with allegations of euthanasia and death panels?

No question that all of us in physician associations have been hearing lots of 
feedback, not only from our members, but from myriad others who have an interest 
in the outcome of health system reform. The volume has been ratcheted up 
considerably during the August congressional recess. With 24/7 cable and 
internet blogs going full steam, how does anyone know what to believe? 

To help physicia
ns better understand what is going on with the legislative 
process, the AMA is reaching out to its members and members of supporting 
organizations with facts and resource materials about health system reform, 
which you can see on our website, www.ama-assn.org/go/reform.

First and foremost, it is important to keep in mind that legislation in the 
House of Representatives (HR 3200) is very much a work in progress. The bill, as 
introduced, promised to achieve many of our collective high-priority goals: 

- Extending coverage to the
 uninsured
- Making investments in the physician workforce
- Providing long-term relief from Medicare's flawed physician payment formula
- Increasing the nation's focus on preventive care and wellness initiatives
- Simplifying administrative burdens for patients and physicians

Three committees in the House have already adopted amendments and more will come 
before the bill is considered on the floor.  Meanwhile, two committees in the 
Senate are still engaged in their own drafting process. 

As the legislative process continues, there will be ample opportunity to work 
with legislators on refinements to the bill.  In fact, improvements were already 
made during the House committee amendment process, particularly with respect to 
the proposal for a public health insurance plan.  It is also important to note 
that among the House committee amendments was an AMA-backed program to test
 
alternative medical liability reforms.

Some physicians have asked why the AMA supported the House legislation so early 
in the process. There were several sensible reasons for this strategy: 

- The original bill contained a core set of high-priority provisions that our 
organization has long supported;
- Bill sponsors were not likely to maintain the $230+ billion investment in 
Medicare physician spending if we did not register support for the bill 
(hospitals, the home health sector, Medicare Advantage plans and pharmaceutical 
companies are all facing cuts in the tens and20hundreds of billions of dollars); 
and
- As early supporters, we are well positioned to help shape revisions to this 
bill, as well as the final legislation that will ultimately be presented to the 
President.

Not only will the AMA and other physician organizations continue to work 
collaboratively with legislators of both political parties, we will also share 
our views with the White House…and have done so already. For instance, the AMA 
and other physician groups have registered strong concerns with the White House 
regarding recent comments made by President Obama regarding tonsillectomies and 
amputations for diabetics. In no uncertain terms we have told White House staff 
that the examples cited by the President were misleading. Further we have urged 
that the President publicly recognize that physicians take an oath and live by a 
code of ethics that commits 
the medical profession to put patients’ interest 
before economics or self-interest.

While some of the information physicians have received reflects legitimate 
differences of opinion, other hyperbole reflects narrow political agendas and is 
purposefully misleading. 

The AMA has also developed a dedicated health system reform web page on which we 
are continually posting important facts, breaking news and web links, so that 
physicians have access to the best, most up-to-date information about reform. 

Visit 
www.ama-assn.org/go/reform now to sign up for e-updates, get the latest 
news, download patient information and take action.

We also urge you to read the Frequently Asked Questions document developed by 
the AMA (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/399/hsr-hr3200-faqs.pdf). We 
hope this information will be helpful to you.

Physicians are working hard to make sure that health system reform meets the 
needs of patients and the physicians who care for them.

Sincerely,
J. James Rohack, MD, AMA President

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH #10

Psychologists repudiate gay-to-straight therapy

NEW YORK – The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

Instead, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options — that could range from celibacy to switching churches — for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

In a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote by the APA's governing council, and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the 150,000-member association put itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

The APA had criticized reparative therapy in the past, but a six-member task force added weight to this position by examining 83 studies on sexual orientation change conducted since 1960. Its comprehensive report was endorsed by the APA's governing council in Toronto, where the association's annual meeting is being held this weekend.

The report breaks new ground in its detailed and nuanced assessment of how therapists should deal with gay clients struggling to remain loyal to a religious faith that disapproves of homosexuality.

Judith Glassgold, a Highland Park, N.J., psychologist who chaired the task force, said she hoped the document could help calm the polarized debate between religious conservatives who believe in the possibility of changing sexual orientation and the many mental health professionals who reject that option.

"Both sides have to educate themselves better," Glassgold said in an interview. "The religious psychotherapists have to open up their eyes to the potential positive aspects of being gay or lesbian. Secular therapists have to recognize that some people will choose their faith over their sexuality."

In dealing with gay clients from conservative faiths, says the report, therapists should be "very cautious" about suggesting treatments aimed at altering their same-sex attractions.

"Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that do not attempt to change sexual orientation, but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome," the report says.

"We have to challenge people to be creative," said Glassgold.

She suggested that devout clients could focus on overarching aspects of religion such as hope and forgiveness in order to transcend negative beliefs about homosexuality, and either remain part of their original faith within its limits — for example, by embracing celibacy — or find a faith that welcomes gays.

"There's no evidence to say that change therapies work, but these vulnerable people are tempted to try them, and when they don't work, they feel doubly terrified," Glassgold said. "You should be honest with people and say, 'This is not likely to change your sexual orientation, but we can help explore what options you have.'"

One of the largest organizations promoting the possibility of changing sexual orientation is Exodus International, a network of ministries whose core message is "Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ."

Its president, Alan Chambers, describes himself as someone who "overcame unwanted same-sex attraction." He and other evangelicals met with APA representatives after the task force formed in 2007, and he expressed satisfaction with parts of the report that emerged.

"It's a positive step — simply respecting someone's faith is a huge leap in the right direction," Chambers said. "But I'd go further. Don't deny the possibility that someone's feelings might change."

An evangelical psychologist, Mark Yarhouse of Regent University, praised the APA report for urging a creative approach to gay clients' religious beliefs but — like Chambers — disagreed with its skepticism about changing sexual orientation.

Yarhouse and a colleague, Professor Stanton Jones of Wheaton College, will be releasing findings at the APA meeting Friday from their six-year study of people who went through Exodus programs. More than half of 61 subjects either converted to heterosexuality or "disidentified" with homosexuality while embracing chastity, their study said.

To Jones and Yarhouse, their findings prove change is possible for some people, and on average the attempt to change will not be harmful.

The APA task force took as a starting point the belief that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, not a disorder, and that it nonetheless remains stigmatized in ways that can have negative consequences.

The report said the subgroup of gays interested in changing their sexual orientation has evolved over the decades and now is comprised mostly of well-educated white men whose religion is an important part of their lives and who participate in conservative faiths that frown on homosexuality.

"Religious faith and psychology do not have to be seen as being opposed to each other," the report says, endorsing approaches "that integrate concepts from the psychology of religion and the modern psychology of sexual orientation."

Perry Halkitis, a New York University psychologist who chairs the APA committee dealing with gay and lesbian issues, praised the report for its balance.

"Anyone who makes decisions based on good science will be satisfied," he said. "As a clinician, you have to deal with the whole person, and for some people, faith is a very important aspect of who they are."

The report also addressed the issue of whether adolescents should be subjected to therapy aimed at altering their sexual orientation. Any such approach should "maximize self-determination" and be undertaken only with the youth's consent, the report said.

Wayne Besen, a gay-rights activist who has sought to discredit the so-called "ex-gay" movement, welcomed the APA findings.

"Ex-gay therapy is a profound travesty that has led to pointless tragedies, and we are pleased that the APA has addressed this psychological scourge," Besen said.