By Annie Hamilton

When applying criticism, it’s often useful to point out something positive in advance, to “soften” things up…as I rarely do this when criticizing the Obama Administration, I thought this might perhaps be somewhat welcome.

He is consistent with his narcissism and as yet unfulfilled “promises.” Hey, it’s something!

He’s been issuing warnings about Universal health care and true to form, they’ve rolled out H.R. 676.

It’s an expansion of Medicare in the form of a Single Payer System which is a bit different than the European style universal health care but make no mistake, it’s just as restrictive, stupid and expensive.

A few of the “features”

1.   Coverage is cradle to grave for every single person in the United States.

2.   Pre-existing conditions will no longer be applicable regardless of health.

3.   No more co-pays OR deductibles.

4.   ALL Prescription medications will be covered.

5.   ALL dental AND eye coverage will be included.

6.   Mental health AND Substance abuse coverage will be FULLY covered.

7.   Long term care AND Nursing home stays will be covered.

8.   You will always choose your own doctors and hospitals…that is, the ones who actually stay in     business.

9.   Costs of care will be determined by a ‘sliding scale’ fee schedule. 

10. They claim the Administration will be ‘easy and painless’

11. Plan is portable and goes where you go, even if you change jobs.

12. Greatly increases the services for those over the age of 65.

13. Promises to ‘never again let Corporation will be able to “deny” you care ever again! (of course not, it will be determined by the Government!!)

Sounds fabulous, sign me up! And while you’re at it, I’ll take a new car, and maybe have my mid-section taken in.  Why not? this is surely the death of personal responsibility with no co-pays, no deductibles and full coverage of everything you can think of. What could be wrong with this utopian health care plan?

For starters, “Cadillac” health care for everyone in the country will only be paid for by those who actually contribute to the economy.  I can tell you for a fact, most of us who do contribute are sick and tired of being taxed to death and I certainly don’t feel like paying for health care for the masses already leeching from the public system, Octomoms and their zillions of kids and more than likely, illegal aliens. This is a surefire recipe for bankruptcy. 

Next, the bill “decides” on the Physicians salary, prevents them from taking ownership in their own practices and determines fee schedules and schedule of payments, by a sliding scale.  I have one question then:  Knowing that medicine is a business that requires extensive education, a certain flair for management of both people and resources, what rational person would knowingly subject themselves to the commitment of “becoming” a Doctor, knowing that this would be the setting in which they’d be practicing?

Are they completely OUT of their minds? 

Many Doctors own their own practices, this will PREVENT that?  How, exactly?  That goes against everything we’re about as Americans.

In our capitalistic nation, we don’t have a health-care system but rather, we have a health-care marketplace where insurance, medical services, and pharmaceuticals are bought and sold. Government spending, taxation and regulation impact this marketplace profoundly. The current Medicare/Medicaid is there for the truly needy and elderly and/or disabled.  Others have the opportunity to purchase insurance through their employers or individually. 

Politicians keep whining about the cost of health care going up every year but what they’re not telling you is much of that is due to waste/over regulation in the system as well as the increases in malpractice insurance that MUST be passed to the patient in order to justify the Physician’s fixed overhead expenses. (Although some of their expenses are variable, most tend to be fixed these days)

One way to LOWER the cost of health care overall is to overhaul the tort system and the anti-trust laws.  Stick with arbitration for the truly negligent cases and get rid of the frivolous lawsuits that are currently shredding the system to pieces. I guarantee you, as our Congress and Senate is mainly made up of attorneys, they don’t want to hear this and would rather throw tax money, our money. at this problem than accept the time to overhaul these idiotic laws.

As much as possible, health coverage should be in the hands of the consumer. Medical savings accounts, flexible spending plans, etc., allowing individuals to set aside portions of their income on a pre-taxed basis for co-pays, deductibles, dental, eye, prescriptions, emergencies and other incidentals. There are various types of flexible plans and companies that will administrate the paperwork for you.  In  certain cases you can actually shift yourself into a more favorable tax bracket just by setting that money aside, pre-taxed, to be spent later.

As employers are now having to deal with the tax and administration hassle of health insurance, wouldn’t it be better to allow individuals to also pay for premiums with pre-tax dollars like corporations do? 

Last but not least, the idea of removing co-pays and deductibles falls into the “what in the hell are they thinking” category.  What incentive does a person have to be careful with over-utilization if there is no tie to their wallet? Since this thing is whipping right through the pipeline in congress, I can’t WAIT to see what their “supposed” added tax will be. 

Everyone, conservative or not needs to be ready for the big reveal regarding the new healthcare tax poo sandwich, because we are all going to have to take a big tasty bite.

The Epitome of Treason and Deceit

Separate, these words convey strong images and feelings, together, the words signal a very deep  betrayal, treachery and a breach of allegiance to the United States and its’ protectors.

Life in America certainly has changed. We’re watching our banks crumble, businesses fold and taxes grow while our Government fails to protect our financial and regulatory interests. Since January 20 we’ve experienced the horror of a dwindling congressional backbone, cuts in our mlitary and an inexperienced President who seemingly despises Americans but would rather cozy up to Dictators and threaten prosecution toward those who practice freedom of speech and personal responsibility.

In short we’re in the middle of a mess that requires experience, wisdom, hard work and a return to traditional values.

Now, even the highly coveted Pulitzer Prize has fallen prey fraudulent hands soiling the prestige of its integrity. This is unfortunate news for writers/reporters of substance as this is the highest achievement and recognition those professionals can earn.

Background

On April 20 (one year to the date of the original article’s publication) The New York Times published a press release announcing their receipt of five Pulitzer prizes. One of those, awarded to Times Reporter David Barstow was especially troubling as its’ intention served as a reward for Barstow’s hit piece on Retired Military Analysts (RMAs), dramatically titled “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand.”

Amongst other things, the piece alleged a manipulative effort to generate favorable news coverage of the Administration’s wartime performance as well as accusations that RMA’s (retired military analysts) were ‘using’ their influence and ties to military contractors in order to gain unfair opportunities to enhance their “individual business interests.”

This article so greatly concerned readers that forty one members of Congress filed a formal request for the Department of Defense to conduct a thorough investigation into the ‘relationship’ between the RMA’s and alleged activities and/or advantages. Amongst the specific concerns raised by Congress was the potential use of appropriated funds for the serving of ‘propaganda or publicity purposes not authorized by Congress.’ As such, under Section 1056 of the Duncan Hunter Act for Fiscal year 2009, the prohibitions were iterated and a formal request for a detailed report was scheduled to be released to Congress within 90 days of the enactment.

In order to fully and appropriately address the issues and congressional concerns, more than 12,000 pages of documents were reviewed and in excess of 30 witnesses were interviewed, including; RMA’s, Department of Defense Public Affairs personnel, and others who provided outreach briefings, papers and media representatives.

Out of the documentation received and scrutinized, absolutely no findings were discovered that positively identified a pattern for RMA’s tendency to gain favorable advantage through their position or authority. As such, no further investigation was deemed warranted and the matter was closed.

So it begs the question, what on earth was Barstow thinking when he put the article together?

Why develop a 3 page hit piece on our nation’s bravest individuals unless it was intended to further serve his radical leftist agenda?

Is he incapable of gathering (and interpreting) accurate research or does he just have a beef with authority figures or the military?

Furthermore, why would the Pulitzer committee give the New York Times one prize, let alone five, after the publication of the 85 page report exonerating these inappropriately targeted officials?

Shouldn’t there be accountability… a day of reckoning for this so-called ‘Reporter’ who failed to meet the burden of proof in order to satisfy his story?

Yes, the first amendment protects both free speech and freedom of the press, with that said, it does not protect the press from public scrutiny, scorn, or criticism when it acts in an irresponsible manner.

Furthermore, publishing articles littered with embellishments, exaggerations and lies is not just irresponsible behaviour for a journalist; it is even worse for their publisher. In this case The New York Times. Those who make a habit of practicing “Yellow Journalism” could eventually find themselves knee deep in civil court proceedings when it results in undue harm and damages to the target of the story.

In this case, its slanderous speech. There is no question there was an outright attempt to smear the good names and reputations of the individuals named in the poorly written article. It hardly requires a genius to understand that Mr. Barstow’s intent was to damage the credibility and reputation of the Bush Administration and our military. His publicly discredited attempts to undercut our nation’s bravest  warriors accomplishes little more than turning the Prize, his newspaper and his reputation into a laughing stock.

And we wonder why our newspapers are going out of print?

With shoddy reporting like Barstow’s, it is little wonder why the paper is losing money.

Mr. Barstow is lacking in accountability and professionalism, he should relinquish his ill gained award.

The public and the military should hold him accountable for his actions now and in the future by calling his office, The New York Times, sending emails and boycotting their advertisers.

He needs to recant his untrue statements, apologize publicly to the American people, the military, and their families for his false reports. Not to mention the American tax payer who is footing the bill for the forty-one congressional representatives to investigate his claims in the first place.

As a journalist, accepting an award under false pretences is not right, it violates The  New York Times ethics rules, and it sends the wrong message to Americans everywhere.

It is time for Americans to Stand Up, protest this outrage and hold David Barstow accountable.

Annie Hamilton is a constitutional conservative and traditionalist. She is the Communications Director for Stand Up America USA and is involved in the Exploratory Committee for Steve Rathje, Congressional hopeful from Iowa and is a featured contributor to American Daily Review, The House Conservatives Fund and Town Hall.