Note, I have not posted for several months since this “bail out” seemed so much more important than health care issues.  But it seems the government is now fully committed to further intervention and further economically disasterous plots so I may start posting again because, heck, what else can I do.  As I have seen in other countries, we will have hard decisions in the future when funds run out due to our new disasterous plans.    Will we become more controlled or will people have enough and demand freedom back?

See this site for a comparison of Obama and McCain tax platforms. I am amazed at how little people understand about taxes. Here are a few facts to help you discuss the issue with friends. More taxes will be needed for universal health care.

Average Total Tax Burden
1900 5.9%
1920 12.0%
1940 17.9%
1960 27.7%
1980 30.4%
2000 33.6%
2008 30.8%

Note, plotting increase in the Federal deficit with these numbers would clearly reveal how the US Govt, without change, is a company bound to failure.

But, for the median income household earning $43,389 a year, the total tax burden is 48.40% — nearly half. This family would pay at least $21,000 in taxes this year.

2007 Poll on Need for Taxes
41% Keep taxes and services where they are
32% Decrease and lower taxes
8% Increase services and raise taxes
20% Not sure
Note, this was an on-line survey — I wager that of the 1/3 of Americans who do not pay taxes, most do not go on-line. Thus, those who want takes increased (those who want your money) is probably higher.

Finally, American’s spend 6.6 billion hours per year filling out tax forms. Economists call this “tax compliance” and it comes to 20 cents per dollar collected by the tax system.

Read how Canadian’s criticize their own system. Not only is the article interesting, but the comments from readers (Canadians) speaks volumes. One could easily imagine these writers as Americans 10 years from now.

The AAPA and the AMA are political groups with a political slant. But many of their members, ourselves included, feel that those political insights are shortsighted. The AAPA may feel any given certain bill is good for PAs, but what if it is bad for our country/communities in the long run.

Below is the e-mail I received from the AAPA (in case you did not get it):
_________

AAPA Members Urged to Contact Senators Today to Prevent Medicare Payment Cut!

Unless Congress acts within the next 13 legislative days, a 10.6 percent Medicare payment cut will take place on July 1. The Senate will take up a cloture motion to begin floor consideration, as early as June 12, to consider S. 3101, the “Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.” (Unless the cloture motion is passed, the Senate cannot consider the Medicare bill.) Introduced by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), S. 3101 would stop the physician payment cut and extend the current 0.5 percent update through the rest of this year and provide an additional 1.1 percent update during 2009. AAPA urges you to contact your Senators today with the message, vote yes on the cloture motion to begin consideration of S. 3101. You may send an e-mail to your Senators’ offices through AAPA’s Legislative Action Center at http://members.aapa.org/vocus/index.htm. Scroll down to “Current Issues” and click on PREVENT MEDICARE PAYMENT CUT to learn more and take action. You may also call your Senators, courtesy of the AMA’s Advocacy Hotline, at 1-800-833-6354. Thank you!

Should the government have a monopoly on medical licensing?  In a recent ruling, the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine has disciplined a Cape Cod Physician for failing to renew her medical license while she continued to provide medical consultation (without prescribing medications) to other people.  While this doctor did sign a contract with the government saying she would not “practice medicine” (which is another topic of dissent for another day), at what point does “practicing medicine” cross the line to become “illegal”?  Why does the government insist on dictating what is good for us?  While I may not agree that alternative therapy is the most beneficial treatment for a condition, is it up to my government to tell others not to promote such remedies?  

Is this the government protecting me from “dangerous” people who “may” harm me, or is this the government protecting it’s monopoly by smacking the wrists of anyone, particularly anyone with an accredited medical degree, who dares give out medical advice?

I was at a dinner party recently where my host declared that, “in America, no one should be allowed to make over $1 M per year?” Now I know those kind of ceilings exist in some socialist countries, but I think the America most of the readers of this blog want is not one with ceilings on salaries.

Nonetheless, money can mean power. And if we have a government which is big, bulky and has too much power, it is easier to corrupt with money. So we should fear a big government which can be bought by large salaries, not the salaries.

Top Pharma CEO salaries
1. Miles White - Abbott - $33.4M
2. Fred Hassan - Schering-Plough - $30.1M
3. Bill Weldon - Johnson & Johnson - $25.1M
4. Bob Essner - Wyeth - $24.1M
5. Robert Parkinson - Baxter - $17.6M
6. Daniel Vasella - Novartis - $15.5M
7. Richard Clark - Merck - $14.5M
8. Frank Baldino - Cephalon - $13.5M
9. Sidney Taurel - Eli Lilly - $13M
10. Jeff Kindler - Pfizer - $12.6M
11. Jim Cornelius - Bristol-Myers Squibb - $11.3
12. Franz Humer - Roche - $11.1M
13. Robert Coury - Mylan - $8.5M
14. Jean-Pierre Garnier - GlaxoSmithKline - $6M
15. Werner Wenning - Bayer - $4.77M
16. David Brennan - AstraZeneca - $4.3M
17. Gerard Le Fur - Sanofi-Aventis - $3.27M

Top Sport Stars Salaries 2008 (source:USA Today)
1 Rodriguez, Alex $ 28,000,000 New York Yankees
2 Giambi, Jason $ 23,428,571 New York Yankees
3 Jeter, Derek $ 21,600,000 New York Yankees
4 Ramirez, Manny $ 18,929,923 Boston Red Sox
5 Beltran, Carlos $ 18,622,809 New York Mets
6 Suzuki, Ichiro $ 17,102,149 Seattle Mariners
7 Santana, Johan $ 16,984,216 New York Mets
8 Helton, Todd $ 16,600,000 Colorado Rockies
9 Hunter, Torii $ 16,500,000 Los Angeles Angels
10 Abreu, Bobby $ 16,000,000 New York Yankees

Top Celebrity Earners (source: Forbes Magazine)
1. Steven Spielberg — $340 million.
2. DJ Howard Stern — $308 million.
3. George Lucas — $240 million.
4. Oprah Winfrey — $230 million.
5. Comedian and actor Jerry Seinfeld — $102 million.
6. Golfer Tiger Woods — $93 million.
7. Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown — $91 million.
8. Pirates of the Caribbean producer Jerry Bruckheimer — $85 million.
9. JK Rowling — $78 million.
10. Law and Order creator Dick Wolf — $72 million.

Direct from AAPA’s homepage:

All PAs and PA students are encouraged to seek ways to enhance the delivery of quality medical care in their local communities. One way is by becoming involved in national efforts like the Divided We Fail campaign.

So, who the heck is “Divided We Fail” (DWF)? They are an affiliate of AARP and have a clear agenda to establish socialized medicine. Click here to see one of their many commercials where they use children to lull your mind. Since when does the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) fight for the well-being of children anyway? Their logo and their site jargon use deceptively vague terms while they try to cull your support of socialized medicine. To quote DWF’s site,

Our leadership believes that Americans should have access to affordable, quality health care and peace of mind about long-term financial security.

I will let you read between the lines. Or better yet, visit their site.

Do you really think the AAPA should be pushing this group on our members? If not, join our group, as our numbers increase, so will our influence in the AAPA. Our goal is to keep the AAPA politically neutral.

This should attract our readers’ antennae. The article talks about the AAPA’s Political Action Committee (PAC). PACs are legal ways to bribe politicians to listen to you. So, who is the AAPA bribing? I thought I’d look. I went to the FEC (Federal Election Commission) website and found out EXACTLY who the AAPA PAC paid. Click here for my compiled summary of the AAPA PAC contributions by congress. I list the contributions by congress person and their party. Note : 22 Democrats and 8 Republicans received funds donated by PAs. On the FEC site you can also find out which PAs donated. The Center for Responsive Politics (at www.opensecrets.org links to the AAPA PAC info also)

So, is the AAPA PAC supporting congress people who you support? Check out the FEC or OpenSecrets.org which makes these contributions transparent. Is the AAPA PAC supporting health policy that you support?

This page at the Kaiser Foundation gives a summary and comparison table of the 2008 presidential candidates’ health care proposals. We must remember, however, that the congress proposes and votes on laws before they go to the president. In the right-hand column of this web page at Americans for Prosperity (AFP), you will find a great little application entitled “Write to Congress” . Just enter your zipcode and it will tell you all your representatives for both the central and state government and give links so you can write them. AFP is a pro-free-market, pro-limited-government group.

The AAPA has a new project: “PAs for a Healthy America: Vote 2008” . According to the article on the same, the AAPA will be distributing campaign-style pins with the slogan at the conference. So what is behind this? The insert in this weeks News lists the “AAPA Principles for Health Care Reform” with the first being: “Access to quality, affordable, cost-effective health care for all”.

Anyone who know political keywords, knows that these all point to socialized medicine. Major players in the AAPA are using our organization to push their political agenda. Bill Leinweber, the AAPA’s new executive vice president/CEO says, “With a mission to promote quality, cost-effective, and accessible health care, and with our vision for PAs to be worldwide leaders vital to providing and improving the medical care of all people, we cannot remain silent at this time.” Translation: “PAs should vote for socialized medicine.” We disagree. But more than must disagreeing, we are offended that our national organization is taking a political stance while its members come from many political positions.