Feds Post Monster Obamacare Bill

Kurt Nimmo 
Infowars
October 30, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants you to read all 1,990 pages of the Obamacare plan. “We are putting it online for all Americans to see,” she announced. Most Americans will probably not read the bill. You’ll need Washington-ese decoder ring to plow through the monstrosity.

If you are adventurous, however, here is a  link to Pelosi’s “transparent” bill.

Republican John Boehner has posted the details of this boat anchor tribute to coercive government on his website. According to Boehner, the government take-over of health care includes: a plethora of new taxes on middle class families, massive cuts to Medicare benefits, no protections for small business, increased costs in the form of higher premiums, budget gimmickry to hide the massive total cost for future generations, imposes job-killing employer mandates, rigs the health care game in favor of a government-run insurance company, forces unfunded mandates on the states, adds more arcane gobbledegook to the tax code, and much more.

In fact, the bill — excluding the creation of the Federal Reserve and confiscatory income taxes — is the largest and most egregious intervention of the government into the private lives of Americans in history.

Americans for Tax Reform have posted the following points taken from the bill:

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).

Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D(Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act

Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.

In addition to the list of taxes for in the ATR report, our people found the following:

Employer FINE Under Mandated Excise Tax (Page 310): A $100 per day excise tax imposed on employers for each employee for whom employer fails to “satisfy the health coverage participation requirements”. Excise tax will not apply if Secretary determines even after “exercising reasonable diligence” employer was unaware of employee’s lack of participation in health coverage.

“CADILLAC” INSURANCE PLANS

Credit vs. Points (Pages 318-320) This portion gives the appearance of providing a temporary two-year credit while at the same time deducting “points” if the Secretary deems that the employer is too generous with its health care benefit package. Ex. p. 319, lines 11-18: “Credit not allowed with respect to certain highly compensated employees. No credit shall be determined under subsection (a) with respect to qualified employee health coverage expenses paid or incurred with respect to any employee for any taxable year if the aggregate compensation paid by the employer to such employee during such taxable year exceeds $80,000”.

MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT

Uncompensated Care Increase (Page 389-390) Page 389, lines 14-19 detail a “significant” decrease in uninsurance will be triggered by only 8% decrease – “There is a “significant” decrease in the national rate of uninsurance as the result of this Act” if there is a decrease in the national rate of uninsurance from 2012 to 2014 that exceeds 8 percentage points.” Page 390, lines 4-9 detail the increase in uncompensated care – “For each fiscal year (beginning with 2017) , the Secretary shall estimate the aggregate reduction in the amount of Medicare DSH payment that would be expected to result from the adjustment under paragraph (1)(A)”. This, in turn, will lower payments to hospitals in reimbursement rates.

Gov’t to legislate Pain Research, page 1493 line 14

Begins with Line 14 ‘‘SEC. 409J. PAIN RESEARCH.

This section covers research that will be conducted at National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Provides for a “Pain Consortium” and a committee to be known as “Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee”

page 1496 describes the attributes of committee members (6 members are scientists, physicians, other health professionals while another 6 members are from general public representatives from leading in research, advocacy and service organizations for individuals with pain-related conditions)

This committee will coordinate all efforts within the Department of Health and Human Services and other Federal agencies that relate to pain research. Appears to be a decision making board on treatment protocols (could rationing be involved here?), create a public awareness campaign on pain,

page 1501

15 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For

16 purposes of carrying out this section, there are authorized

17 to be appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 and

18 $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 and 2015.’’.

Employer Excise Tax (Pages 313-317): If an employer chooses not to provide health insurance to employees, an excise tax on the total wages paid is imposed on the employer. The excise tax percentage ranges from 2% of total payroll of $500,000 to 8% of payroll of $750,000 or more. If an employer has less than $500,000 annual payroll, he pays no excise tax.

Employer Health Coverage Tax Credit (Pages 317-319): Small business owners receive a tax credit of 50% of health insurance paid for employees whose wages are $20,000 or less per year when the employer has 10 or fewer employees. The tax credit is prorated as the amount of wages increases, leaving no tax credit for the employer when such employee’s wages total $80,000 or more per year.

For employers with more than 10 employees, the tax credit calculated by the proratio shall be reduced by an amount in the ratio of 10 to total number of employees.

SEC. 1416. Ensuring Staffing Accountability

(a) Skilled Nursing Facilities

(b) Nursing Facilities

Page #: 822 – 826

Subject: privacy

Remarks:

This section of the bill calls for an amendment to the Social Security Act “(C) Submission of Staffing Information Based on Payroll Data in a Uniform Format.”

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall require a skilled nursing facility to electronically submit to the Secretary direct care staffing information including agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format (GE?) (as established by the Secretary in consultation with among others, consumer advocacy groups (ACORN?))

GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF CARE AND RESEARCH

*Government Panel for Senior Care Decisions (Pages 649-661): The Secretary has the right to waive requirements of the Social Security Act Titles XI & XVIII. These providers will put together patient decisions aids and share in seniors’ decisions regarding their health care. Seniors will attend counseling provided by said panel. Compensation will be granted to providers who generate less cost for care with regards to Parts A and B of Medicare.

Government Legislation of Pain Research (Pages 1493-1501): Page 1496 describes the attributes of committee members (6 members are scientists, physicians, other health professionals while another 6 members are from general public representatives from leading in research, advocacy and service organizations for individuals with pain-related conditions). This committee will coordinate all efforts within the Department of Health and Human Services and other Federal agencies that relate to pain research. Appears to be a decision making board on treatment protocols, create a public awareness campaign on pain. Ramifications include overly regulated treatment protocols for chronic pain and the possible end result of rationing. The viability of private research is questioned in light of this section.

(Page 1501): Lines 15-18 establish the authorization of appropriations – “For purposes of carrying out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 and $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 and 2015”.

Government Regulation of Staffing in Nursing Facilities (Pages 822-826): In a specific motion to alter state authority of nursing facilities and to provide the Secretary and consumer advocacy groups with overreaching authority, this section of the bill calls for an amendment to the Social Security Act “(C) Submission of Staffing Information Based on Payroll Data in a Uniform Format.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall require a skilled nursing facility to electronically submit to the Secretary direct care staffing information including agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format as established by the Secretary in consultation with among others, consumer advocacy groups.

Government Authority in Determining Medical Home Models (Pages 680-690): Secretary is provided wide latitude to fund and create both independent and community-based medical home models in order to reward physicians and others to coordinate treatment for chronically ill patients in underserved (rural) areas. Patient need not designate a doctor as their caregiver.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS

Sec. 2201

Obligated Service Requirement (Page 1220): “The entity and the Corps member agree in writing that the Corps member will perform half-time clinical practice”. Essentially, this details “those individuals who have entered into a contract for obligated service under the Scholarship Program or Loan Repayment Program un which the individuals are authorized to satisfy the requirement of obligated service through providing clinical practice”. Essentially these individuals are obliged to work off debt in this capacity.

ABORTION

Abortion Coverage (Page 110): “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A)”. Paragraph (4)(A) Abortion Services – Abortions for which public funding is prohibited. That said, paragraph (4)(B) “The services described in this subparagraph are for abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted.”
GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF INDUSTRY

Health Czar (Page 133): Establishes Health Czar and bureaucracy, i.e. “Health Choices Commissioner” and “Health Choices Administration”. Essentially, this area lends the Health Commissioner and Health Choices Administration power over health insurance plans both inside and outside of the Health Insurance Exchange. The concern is that the provision invites overreaching authority and oversight of plans specifically set up to provide timely and needed care not readily available through the government exchange-controlled plans.

Health Czar Health Plan Audits (Page 133-134) Provides “Health Commissioner”/Czar with wide discretion to audit “qualified health benefits plans” and then bill the plan for the cost of the audit, regardless of grounds for the audit and regardless of whether or not the plan was found to have violated any regulation. The concern is the overreaching of authority and power over private health plans and the conjecture is that this will force a process by which consumers are significantly limited in their health plan choices. As written, no protection from abuse of power in this regard is provided.

Word/Topic Reviewed: Subtitle E—Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections

SEC. 1138A. REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC REPORTING BY HOSPITALS AND AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTERS ON HEALTH CARE-ASSOCIATED INFECTIONS.

This section is vaguely disturbing in the way it micro-manages hospitals, a vast overreach of federal power, but that’s nothing surprising in this bill. Two specific red flags:

Sub-topic (b)(2).

Page #. 915Paragraph #. 2

Subject: 02, 03

Remarks: Infections are to be publicly posted and compared by demographic information. (Age? Race?)

Sub-topic (c)(4).

Page #. 916

Paragraph #. 2

Subject: 03, 04

Remarks: Infections are being studied in such detail in order to reduce costs, not because of quality of care concerns

Government Regulatio of Patient Care

Regulation of Services (Page 383) Lines 11-16 allot for using appropriate indicators for non-therapy ancillary services classification, which may include age, physical and mental status, ability to perform activities of daily living, etc. The concern is over the method of deciding care delivery, placing key decision-making elements in the hands of politicians and other non-medical staff as opposed to the hands of patients’ doctors and families.

Regulation on Patient Stay (Page 385) Establishes payment based on total costs during stay in a skilled nursing facility as opposed to the number of days in such stay.

ABORTION

Abortion Coverage (Page 110): “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A)”. Paragraph (4)(A) Abortion Services – Abortions for which public funding is prohibited. Paragraph (4)(B) “The services described in this subparagraph are for abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted.”

Federal Funding of Abortion (Page 147) Lines 14-(1) IN GENERAL.—“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding – (A) conscience protection; (B) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; (C) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion. The concern regards lines 20-23 (C) as it is viewed as a potential open door for funding of organizations such as Planned Parenthood. The document affirms that this bill has no effect on current law where discrimination based on either willingness or refusal to participate in abortion services, and thus, provides no additional protect against the use of Federal funds allocated for abortion services. As, additionally, the Hyde Amendment is in no way incorporated into this piece of legislation and because no additional explicit protections exist in this document, this piece of legislation will, indeed, provide authorization of federal funding of abortion under the public option.

Additionally, because there is no ban on abortion funding under the reauthorization of the Indian Health Service (IHS), and additionally no additional protections such as the Vitter Amendment, there is nothing to prevent abortion funding.

Mandated School-Based Health Clinics (Page 1354) Lines 9-21 states, “(c) Use of Funds – Funds awarded under a grant under this section …(2) may not be used to provide abortions. However, there is no specific language prohibiting either abortion referrals or the distribution of information materials regarding access to abortion.

Required Reporting Regarding Infections Sec. 1138A – Requirement for public reporting by hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers on health care-associated infections. Page 915 – States, “infections are to be publicly posted and compared by demographic information.” Page 916 – States “infections are being studied in such detail in order to reduce costs, not because of quality of care concerns”. The concern stems from both the ambiguity that exists in the statement referenced on page 915 as well as the lack of concern over quality of care in regards to infection.

Required Reporting Trumps State Laws Sec. 1128H – Financial reports on physicians’ financial relationships with manufacturers and distributors of covered drugs, devices, biologicals or medical supplies under Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP and with entities that bill for services under Medicare. Page 910 – Concerns is that language pre-empts state laws requiring manufacturers to report their relationships to physicians. Page 912 – Establishes that “Comptroller General” is to file a report establishing that no loopholes exist in said section.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF NON-HEALTH INDUSTRY

Regulation of Disclosure of Nutrient Content/Menu Variability (Page 1514) Lines 5-14 – “The Secretary shall establish by regulation standards for determining and disclosing the nutrient content for standard menu items that come in different flavors, varieties, or combinations, but which are listed as a single menu item, such as soft drinks, ice cream, pizza, doughnuts, or children’s combination meals, through means determined by the Secretary, including ranges, averages, or other methods”. Rules extend to maintaining the calculation of combo meals an addition cost to restaurants.

Regulation of Vending Machine Owners/Suppliers (Page 1516) Lines 4-8 – Pertaining to businesses that own or operation 20 or more vending machines, “the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that included a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article”.

Regulation of Food Preparation/Presentation (Page 1517) Lines 14-22 – “The Secretary shall (aa) consider standardization of recipes and methods of preparation, reasonable variation in serving size and formulation of menu items, space on menus and menu boards, inadvertent human error, training of food service workers, variations in ingredients, and other factors, as the Secretary determines”.

Pg. 1601

19 solved with reasonable premium increases

PG 1555

lines 1 through 7 and no such

5 information or documentary material may be

6 made public

‘‘(E) ENFORCEMENT.—

14 ‘‘(i) CIVIL PENALTY.—Any person

15 that violates a provision of this paragraph

16 shall be liable for a civil penalty of not

17 more than $11,000 for each day on which

18 the violation occurs.

Pg. 1624

5 (2) PERSONAL CARE ATTENDANT WORKFORCE

6 ADVISORY PANEL.—Section 202 of such Act (42

7 U.S.C. 3012)

Pg. 1800

22 ‘‘(3) PEER REVIEW PANELS18 ‘‘(e) PEER REVIEW PANELS.—The Secretary may

19 provide for the establishment of peer review panels, as nec20

essary, to review and evaluate applications using the cri21

teria developed pursuant to subsection (d)

Pg. 1805

12 ‘‘SEC. 307. LAND TRANSFER

15 departments of the United States are authorized to transfer, at

16 no cost, land and improvements to the Service

Pg. 1584

11 paid into a Life Independence Account for ob

12 taining assistance with decisionmaking

13concerning medical care

See attachment for a compilation of what’s been found so far on p. 110-200. Some highlights:

p. 110 (4) (B) Federal funding for abortion is in;

p. 111 Sec. 223 “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” to recommend covered benefits (AKA “rationing board”)

p. 120-130 HHS Sec. directed to clarify/define several bits in this section (reader found 50+ calls for Sec. to clarify/define, including in rest of bill)

p.133-134 “Health Choices Administration” with power over health insurance plans both inside and outside the Health Insurance Exchange invites harassment of non-Exchange plans and abuse aimed at driving private plans out of business.

Lots more where these tidbits came from in the attachment. Will get to work collating any reports which may have come in since 4:30PM Central Time today as soon as I post this.

Pages 1850 – 1860 Titled “HEALTH SERVICES FOR URBAN INDIANS” contains a lot of double talk. What it summarily says in plain English is that the Secretary now controls and approves any and all grants and/or contracts entered into or referred by an Indian Tribe, Urban Indians or Tribal Organizations, including but not limited to healthcare needs, education of any kind, desease prevention, wild life preservation, land preservation or land purchases, and anything else covered under the 1921 Snyder Act. I specifically found it interesting that on page 1860, lines 14-23, the purpose of a contract or grant…shall be the determination… in order to assist the Secretary in assessing the health status and health care needs of Urban Indians in the Urban Center involved and determining whether the Secretary should enter into a contract or make a grant…
ADDITIONAL ITEM RELATED TO INDIAN HEALTH:

Septic System Regulations (Pages 1780-1790) The Federal government will fund sanitation facilities for Indian Tribes with the following provisions: (Page1781) “Sec. 302 (a) (1) financial and technical assistance to operate and maintain sanitation facilities…. (a) (3) funding to operate and maintain sanitation facilities….(b) Congress reaffirms the primary responsibility and authority of the Service to provide the necessary sanitation facilities and services as provided in section 7 of the Act of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a)…..(Page 1783) – (c) (5) fund up to 100% of a tribes loan for sanitation facility….…(Page 1785)(c) (8) the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, by regulation, establish standards applicable to the planning, design, and construction of sanitation facilities funded under this Act… (Page 1787) (d) The financial and technical capability of an Indian Tribe, Tribal Organization, or Indian community to safely operate, manage, and maintain a sanitation facility shall not be a prerequisite to the provision or construction of sanitation facilities by the Secretary”. It is posited that this item is a necessary item for the bill as septic-related issues directly affect health issues for the Indian Community. However, it is a concern that this is transition of power overrides local standards for the Indian Community and usurps local authority over key community infrastructure and systems. It is worthy to note, as well, that sanitation needs include a clean water source which involves a myriad of issues related to clean water and environmental concerns.

Ron Paul For President 2012

New Info Revolution YouTube Movie For The 50 DVD Challenge

More Police Brutality

San Jose police officers caught on video using baton, Taser gun on unarmed suspect.



This has got to stop. More and more, it just keeps on coming. Police Brutality is at an all time high and no one gets called on it. Its almost as if someone told the police it was ok to do this and assured them that they can't get in trouble for it. How many times do we see videos like this and then learn that the officers didn't even get a slap on the wrist. Its out of hand, don't forget the G20 Videos that were posted on this very site.

We Are Change NYC Talks To Police On The Street

South Park on Hate Crimes

South Park officially makes more sense then our government.

Stand Up America

James Green
The Info Revolution


Its time to learn, reflect, then take a stand and reach out to our fellow Americans. The same 
Americans who you would expect to share the same truth with you if they knew and you didn't. When revolution turns to renaissance. A revival and renewed interest in our countries
sovereignty. Stand up now, while we still have that right. Be a part of something great, be a
part of history, the right side of history. When we look back 10 or 20 years from now and look
at the world and what its become, will we look back and know we did the right thing? Will
we know that we did what we could to shape the outcome? Our founding fathers and many
other patriots once stood the same way, in the face of tyranny. They gave us the freedoms and our constitution, then warned us of a time when people would try to strip us of it. These
tyrants know they would have no chance to walk onto our soil and use violence to take this
country, so they have used stealth. So many baby steps seem like nothing at first, but over
time we have seen great strides in the wrong direction. Empty promises, no transparency, and freedoms they have been striped from us one by one. Jobs are disappearing everyday. We must take time to reflect and they act swiftly to inform our neighbors.

Chinese Join Worldwide Rejection Of Swine Flu Vaccine

Less than one third say they will definitely get H1N1 shot

Steve Watson Infowars.net Monday, Oct 26, 2009  people of China are the latest to reject the H1N1 vaccine, according to results of national poll there indicating that concern over the vaccine's safety outweighs concern over the virus itself. The poll, conducted by China Daily and news website sohu.com found that only 30% of 2,000 respondents said they would definitely get the shot. Over 54% of the respondents rejected the vaccine outright, meaning that 702 000 000 people will refuse to roll up their sleeves and take the shot. The survey indicates a seismic shift in popular opinion from just two months ago, when 76% of people in China indicated that they would opt for inoculation. The primary reason for the turnaround, according to the survey results, is a general worry over the quality and reliability of the vaccine, given that it has been fastracked and is based on "mock up vaccines" that are up to two years old. Just two deaths resulting from H1N1 flu have been confirmed in China, according to the health ministry. The views of the Chinese people also reflect those of populations within the United States, Canada, the UK and in the rest of Europe. Last week, when the first H1N1 vaccines became available, 62% of American respondents to an ABC News/Washington Post survey said they will probably not get vaccinated, while 30% said they are not confident in the shot's safety. Despite a relatively low number of deaths in the U.S. (see table below), coupled with the fact that the H1N1 virus remains mild, President Obama declared a national state of emergency over the weekend, prompting fears of mandatory vaccinations and martial law. Meanwhile, in Europe, similar levels of rejection of the vaccine have been reported, with large portions of Danes, Finns, Germans, French, Spanish, Belgians and Dutch people all saying they do not intend to take the shot. The number of refusniks is set to increase following reports late last week of severe side effects and even deaths in Sweden and Bulgaria that may have been linked with the vaccine. In France, nine individuals have filed formal charges claiming that the H1N1 mass vaccination campaign is a deliberate attempt to poison the French population. In Germany, where the mass vaccination campaign begins today, just 13% now say they are willing to take the shot, down from 51% in July. The dramatic fall off in willing recipients follows revelations that government officials, the German military, police and members of pandemic crisis committees will receive a non adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine, while the general public will only be offered the GlaxoSmithKline Pandemrix shot, which contains squalene and thimerosal.

Obama's H1N1 Emergency Declaration Could Invoke FEMA Response to Pandemic

Mike Adams
Natural News
October 26, 2009

President Obama’s declaration of a national pandemic emergency is “no cause for alarm,” reported the mainstream media throughout the weekend. The declaration is nothing more than a “precaution,” they say. “It’s really more a continuation of our preparedness steps,” said Anne Schuchat, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in a USA Today story.

	Obama’s declaration effectively ends many civil liberties in America.

In other words, there’s not really any emergency at all. So why declare a national emergency in the first place? The media reports this was done to allow hospitals to bypass federal regulations concerning the setting up of large-scale triage sites — emergency medical camps quickly constructed to deal with large numbers of sick people.

But at the same time, H1N1 isn’t causing large-scale sickness. As USA Today reported, an expert on infectious disease, P.J. Brennan (the chief medical officer for the Penn Health System at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia) said, “The public ought to take some solace, some relief in this. It’s not a suggestion that things have deteriorated in any way. In no way is the virus more severe or more difficult to manage.”

So let me get this straight. The H1N1 virus remains mild. The CDC reports that swine flu infections already peaked out in mid-October. There have been no new developments in swine flu that would be cause for alarm and no reason to suspect huge numbers of sick people flooding into the hospitals. And yet, for some reason, the Obama administration has declared a national pandemic emergency specifically for the purpose of speeding the ability of hospitals to process large masses of sick people through emergency medical triage tents?

What are these people not telling us?

Something doesn’t add up here. Why would the U.S. government need to declare a national emergency to enable hospitals to handle a flood of sick people when there is no flood of sick people (and the pandemic seems to be fizzling out)?

This is more like the kind of preparation you might expect in advance of a biological terrorism attack, not for a flu that appears no more dangerous than the seasonal sniffles.

The National Emergencies Act and FEMA

Meanwhile, the media ignores the rest of the story about what dangerous powers a declaration of a national emergency puts into play. As reported here on NaturalNews, this declaration effectively ends many civil liberties in America and, at least on paper, puts the U.S. government in the position of having the legal authority to force vaccinations on the entire population at gunpoint (if they wanted to).

The National Emergencies Act passed in 1976 has some peculiar realities attached to it. In particular, as Wikipedia reports:

A federal emergency declaration allows the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to exercise its power to deal with emergency situations … Typically, a state of emergency empowers the executive to name coordinating officials to deal with the emergency and to override normal administrative processes regarding the passage of administrative rules.

Got that yet? By declaring a national emergency, Obama invokes a set of laws that not only override important sections of the U.S. Constitution, but that also activate FEMA to take charge of “responding” to the emergency.

Now we know why they need all those emergency medical tent camps near the hospitals. FEMA’s in charge! And if FEMA handles the swine flu pandemic in the same way the agency handled the Hurricane Katrina disaster, we may indeed need all those emergency triage tents after all.

Those of you who have been following the ongoing march to destroy the freedoms of the American People already know about FEMA camps. These aren’t Boy Scout field trip camps; they’re detention centers designed to hold large numbers of people for “emergency” purposes. Many theories abound on what these FEMA camps might be used for (www.campFEMA.com) (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index….).

They could conceivably be used to quarantine people who are infected with a dangerous pandemic virus. On the other hand, they might also be used to isolated and detain people who refuse to be vaccinated against any declared pandemic. Under the National Emergencies Act and related U.S. law, FEMA would have two years of near-total control over the civilian population, during which people could be subjected to forced vaccinations, mandatory searches of their homes, gunpoint detainment and “involuntary transportation” to a FEMA detainment facility, and so on.

I’m not saying they’re going to do all this, but they could if they wanted to!

And that’s not freedom. Real freedom means you have the guaranteed right to be safe from being detained, or arrested without cause, or injected with a government-mandated chemical. Under a declaration of a national emergency, your “freedom” is at the whim of those who maintain police state powers over you. You’re only “free” if they decide to refrain from exercising the power they have over you. It’s the same kind of freedom you might get as a peasant in some Medieval kingdom where the king says, “You’re free to go.”

Now, some of these freedom-restricting actions might conceivably be justifiable if a truly dangerous pandemic virus were sweeping through the population killing millions, causing huge disruptions in the national infrastructure and threatening the nation with a partial or total shutdown of essential services. But that is not happening here. H1N1 is a mild virus that rates astonishingly low on the severity scale. If H1N1 were a hurricane, it would be little more than a “tropical depression.” It is not a category five hurricane, nor a phase six pandemic. Virtually everyone who is exposed to H1N1 generates their own antibodies and cures themselves naturally. According to hospital reports, those who have died from the H1N1 virus are almost exclusively people who were already suffering from preexisting conditions that compromised their health such as asthma or extreme obesity.

By any measure, H1N1 as currently configured appears to present no extraordinary threat to the health of the population. So once again, we must ask: Why declare a national emergency and initiate a FEMA response to something that’s not really an emergency?

Why I’m concerned
For the first time in this whole pandemic situation, I’m concerned. Not due to the virus itself, because that’s a mild virus that presents no real threat to the population at large. I’m concerned about what we don’t know might be going on behind the scenes here.

These preparations for large-scale medical triage tents and the emergency activation of FEMA have me worried that the American people aren’t being told the whole story. Perhaps a terrorist organization is planning on releasing a wildly dangerous mutation of H1N1 in some major U.S. city. Or perhaps some vaccine maker is, in fact, that terrorist organization. (The best way to sell more vaccines would be to release a mutated form of H1N1 into the population and scare up some more sales…)

Or maybe, as some creative thinkers have suggested, the vaccine itself IS a bioweapon, and the U.S. government is preparation for large-scale fatalities it expects to see soon.

Or maybe these are just fleeting, dark visions from crazy people, and the U.S. government is a benevolent organization with all our best interests in mind, and they’re jumping through these bureaucratic hoops to make sure there are plenty of hospital beds to go ’round just in case more people get really sick.

But even that explanation doesn’t hold water. A “national emergency declaration” isn’t necessary to waive hospital tent rules. Obama could have easily accomplished the same thing with an Executive Order, without having to invoke the National Emergencies Act or put FEMA in charge at all.

He chose the emergency declaration for a specific reason. I guess we’ll all have to wait and see what that real reason turns out to be.

Sources for this story include:

USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health…

Wikipedia:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation…

The Threat of Mandatory Vaccinations

Adam Murdock, MD
Campaign for Liberty
October 26, 2009

Stop the Swine Whine!

The H1N1 “swine” flu is an extraordinarily deadly virus.

You need to get the vaccine or you could suffer the consequences.

So-and-so has died in your neighborhood. Do you want to be next?

The above statements are typical of the lines that have been fed to the people of the world from the controlled media. In fact, the drum beat has been so deafening that you would think that people were dropping like flies. Sure there have been some deaths related to the flu but most have affected individuals with risk factors such as pre-existing lung conditions or people who are immunocompromised. Most healthy individuals that I have personally seen and in general have experienced nothing more than run of the mill flu symptoms.

Unfortunately, a lot of the hysteria has arisen out of disinformation or lack of information. I am going to address some of the disinformation by posing a few questions. First, do people die from the virus itself? And, if so, why do some individuals succumb to the virus and not others? The answers to the above questions are not commonly known but are pretty well established in the medical community. The facts are that the flu virus is seldom the sole cause of death, even among compromised individuals. In fact, many of the fatal cases arise from individuals that acquire bacterial superinfections. These bacterial infections arise after the lining of the lung is damaged by the virus which leaves the lung susceptible. The reason for this is that the lining of the lungs are critical for the removal of infectious elements and debris acquired during inhalation or from the upper respiratory tract. When these normal mechanisms breakdown or are already impaired, as is the case in pre-existing lung conditions, fatal bacterial infections can arise. It is these infections that are frequently the culprits in the flu. A result of this knowledge is that, I, as a physician am particularly cognizant of examining patients with presumed flu for signs and symptoms of pneumonia and in particular bacterial pneumonia.

What facts about the 1918 flu made some infectious disease experts worried about the swine flu this time around? The timeline of the 1918 flu was really composed of two flu seasons. The particularly virulent form of the flu was preceded by a mild flu much earlier in the season. It is believed that the milder form of the flu was able to acquire virulence factors by “mutating” into a more virulent form that affected younger, healthier patients. It was the second more virulent form that was the cause of the millions of deaths. Or was it? The media and public health officials like to blame all the deaths on the flu. As usual, there are some “confounding” variables, which in the case of the flu are other variables that may have affected the outcomes of flu victims. The first variable was sanitation. The cities of the early twentieth century were not known for their high sanitation standards. Nor was the importance of methods for preventing transmission of the virus such as hand washing and limited close contact understood. The second variable was an understanding about the virus itself and how it spreads, which as you might expect was rather limited at that time. Finally, treatment for flu patients at the time consisted entirely of supportive care. The advent of antivirals and antibiotics for the treatment of bacterial complications of the flu had yet to be invented. These factors greatly contributed to the mortality of the disease.

What about this year’s swine flu? This year’s flu also started earlier in the year, somewhat like the 1918 virus and has been relatively mild. The fear was that this virus would also acquire the factors that would make it more virulent. It is this question that has generated all the hysteria and government intervention.

This leads me to the next question: Did we really need all the hysteria over a highly speculative event with little probability of happening?

The answer might have been “maybe,” if we really were experiencing an exact copy of the 1918 flu. Yet, I am unaware that the current mild swine flu has undergone any type of comparable virulent transformation as many were predicting. In addition, a couple of the original vaccine trials published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine examining the efficacy of the H1N1 vaccine demonstrated that up to 40 % of people already had antibodies to the flu and therefore were possibly already immune. (1) (2) As this data is now several months old, the percentage is likely much higher now. It may be that the majority of people already have antibodies to the swine flu. Another study recently published in Euroscience by Purdue scientists predicts that the peak number of cases of swine flu will happen this week through Oct. 24. They also predict that the vaccine is not likely to have much effect on the total number of people that will acquire the swine flu because it has arrived too late. (3)

So with this information in hand what has been the response of government health officials? Have they halted a massive multi-billion dollar vaccination campaign that would vaccinate a group of people that may be already immune to a mild swine flu? Quite the contrary; they have intensified their efforts. They are calling medical professionals unethical if they don’t get vaccines and even in some cases forcing vaccinations upon nurses and doctors as in New York. In addition, there has much talk about suspending constitutional freedoms and forcing vaccinations upon the general population.

What is scariest about the whole situation is that governments are seizing this opportunity to create emergency power bills that include pandemics such as with flu, thus mimicking the unconstitutional powers that have already been usurped by our Presidents. Recently, Pennsylvania has proposed such legislation. (4)

House bill 492 proposes emergency powers to “compel a person to submit to a physical examination or testing, or both, as necessary to diagnose or treat the person.” This is to be done “without resort to judicial or quasi-judicial authority.” This legislation will also require that “any physician or other health care provider to perform the medical examination or testing, or both” under penalty of law. In addition, “the public health authority may, for such period as the state of public health emergency exists, compel a person to be vaccinated or treated, or both, for an infectious disease.” In other words, the rights of the patient and physician can be removed solely because a government public health authority believes a health emergency is imminent. This dictatorial power is to be accomplished without any judicial review.

What about the big pharmaceutical companies? I was recently reading about the pharmaceutical company, Baxter, who is projecting earnings of $30 – 40 million this quarter alone from swine flu vaccinations. Indeed, “Baxter International Inc., best known for its drug pumps and products for blood disorders and kidney disease, said it sees a lucrative new revenue source in vaccines and a multiyear opportunity in H1N1 swine flu vaccines.” (5) It appears that big pharma is seizing upon the hysteria around this flu to potentially establish a new flu vaccine for years to come. This is despite the fact that a majority of the people may be already immune to the current H1N1 virus and the potential for pandemic swine flu in the years to come is likely minimal.

What about harm from the vaccine? Public health officials and the media like to portray the vaccine as virtually harmless. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although most immediate side-effects are minimal, it is well established that people can experience severe allergic reactions and Guillain-Barre syndrome, a severe neurological condition characterized by ascending paralysis. These conditions can lead to death and frequently do if unrecognized. In addition, there may be long-term side-effects related to adjuvants and mercury in vaccines that yet to have been fully characterized due to a lack of randomized studies for vaccinations. To add insult to injury, this vaccination has been rushed through the usual safety evaluation for vaccines in order that the government might “save” us from the deadly swine flu. So why take the risk if the benefits at this point are ill-defined. Indeed, physicians are mandated by law to tell their patients about all risks, benefits, and alternatives to any proposed treatment. Surely, any self-respecting physician should uphold his/her Hippocratic Oath by sharing the information with their patients.

Finally, it is not my right to tell you whether or not you should get flu vaccines, much less force you. Under the constitution, nobody else should have that right either. Unfortunately, it may be soon that our constitutional rights are only as good as the next flu season.

References

1. Greenberg, Michael, et. Al. Response after One Dose of a Monovalent Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Vaccine — A Prelimary Report. New England Journal of Medicine. Sept. 10, 2009.

2. Clark, Tristan, et. Al. Trial of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent MF59-Adjuvanted Vaccine — Preliminary Report. New England Journal of Medicine. Sept. 10, 2009.

3. Study: H1N1 Vaccine Too Late, Won’t Help Most. FoxNews. Oct. 20, 2009.

4.  Pennsylvania House Bill 492.

5. Baxter sees multiyear opportunity in H1N1 vaccines. Reuters. Debra Sherman. Oct. 15, 2009.

Canadians Wary Of Swine Flu Vaccine

AFP
October 26, 2009


Most Canadians are skeptical of the swine flu threat and of the vaccine to fight it, a survey suggested on Monday as the country’s largest-ever vaccination program in Canada got underway.

Fifty-one percent of 1,000 Canadians surveyed by polling firm Strategic Counsel for the daily Globe and Mail newspaper said they would not get vaccinated against the deadly A(H1N1) flu virus, while 49 percent said they wanted a flu shot.

The poll gave no margin of error because the respondents answered voluntarily through an online survey. A similar survey in July showed 62 percent saying they planned to get a swine flu shot.

The split reflects lingering concerns that the vaccine developed by GlaxoSmithKline has not been fully tested and that the influenza outbreak is not very serious, pollster Tim Woolstencroft told the newspaper.

Read entire article

Back-Door Taxes Hit Americans With Public Financing In The Dark

Peter Robison, Pat Wechsler and Martin Z. Braun
Bloomberg
October 26, 2009


Salvatore Calvanese, the treasurer of Springfield, Massachusetts, for four years, had a ready defense for why he risked $14 million of taxpayer money on collateralized-debt obligations laden with subprime mortgages in 2007.

He didn’t know what he was buying, he says, and trusted the financial professionals who sold them and told him they were safe.

“I thought they were money markets that were just paying more,” Calvanese said in an interview. “Nobody ever used the term ‘CDO,’ and I am not sure I would have known what that was anyway.”

Such financial mistakes, often enabled by public officials’ lack of disclosure and accountability for almost 90 percent of government financings in the $2.8 trillion municipal bond market, are costing U.S. taxpayers as much as $6 billion a year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg in more than a dozen states.

Read entire article

Police Define Political Activism As 'Domestic Extremism'

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, October 26, 2009

Police in Britain have defined political activism as “domestic extremism” and are treating people who attend demonstrations as criminals, cataloguing them on multiple national databases as well as tracking their vehicle license plates to enable them to be targeted for stop and search harassment.

People of any political persuasion protesting any cause whatsoever, right or left-wing, are having their details stored on a network of nationwide intelligence databases overseen by three national police units exclusively devoted to spying on those who are even mildly politically active in Britain.

“The hidden apparatus has been constructed to monitor “domestic extremists”, reports the London Guardian. “Detailed information about the political activities of campaigners is being stored on a number of overlapping IT systems, even if they have not committed a crime.”

The police units in control of the system are headed up by the “terrorism and allied matters” committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), illustrating once again that the British government equates peaceful protest with domestic terrorism.

“Vehicles associated with protesters are being tracked via a nationwide system of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras,” reports the Guardian. “One man, who has no criminal record, was stopped more than 25 times in less than three years after a “protest” marker was placed against his car after he attended a small protest against duck and pheasant shooting. ANPR “interceptor teams” are being deployed on roads leading to protests to monitor attendance.”

The system, funded to the tune of £9 billion by the taxpayer, also employs spies to infiltrate and inform on protest groups.

The following Orwellian statement is the the government’s response to criticism that the databases contain vast numbers of people who have no criminal record.

“Just because you have no criminal record does not mean that you are not of interest to the police,” said Anton Setchell, national co-ordinator for domestic extremism for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). “Everyone who has got a criminal record did not have one once.”

In other words, everyone who attends a protest, criminal record or not, is on the database and is regarded as a “domestic extremist” by the government.

Superintendent Steve Pearl, the front man for one of the units within Acpo tasked with surveilling protesters told the Guardian that the system was set up after intense pressure from big business, particularly pharmaceutical giants, as well as banks, who demanded that demonstrators be targeted after a minority of animal rights activists engaged in criminal acts.

As another Guardian report on the story explains, just like their counterparts across the pond, British authorities have rebranded lawful protests as “domestic extremism” and now treat any attempt to further a campaign, change legislation or domestic policy as probable cause for criminal surveillance.

Police are provided with mug shots of protesters, known as “spotter cards,” (see above) enabling them to identify key members of protest groups, despite the fact that these individuals have no criminal records.

As comedian Mark Thomas discusses today in his Guardian piece, despite the fact that he was merely attending an arms fair for the purpose of researching for a book, his mug shot is featured on the “police spotter card,” while companies inside the fair who were openly selling illegal torture devices were completely ignored by the government and the police.

“The very phrase “domestic extremist” defines protesters in the eyes of the police as the problem, the enemy. Spying on entire groups and organisations, and targeting the innocent, undermines not only our rights but the law – frightfully silly of me to drag this into an argument about policing, I know,” writes Thomas.

“Protest is part of the democratic process. It wasn’t the goodwill of politicians that led them to cancel developing countries’ debt, but the protests and campaigning of millions of ordinary people around the world. The political leaders were merely the rubber stamp in the democratic process. Thus any targeting and treatment of demonstrators (at the G20 for example) that creates a “chilling effect” – deterring those who may wish to exercise their right to protest – is profoundly undemocratic.”

This is what spying on and treating protesters as extremists and criminals is all about. The government has created a chilling atmosphere where people are scared to exercise their rights because of the fear they will be targeted by the authorities. This is an end run around freedom as it is just as good as outlawing protest altogether. This is how tyranny throughout history always begins – first the state demonizes protesters as extremists and discourages anyone from joining their ranks through fear and intimidation. Once the number of dissidents has been reduced to a tiny minority, the authorities then have free reign to stamp the boot down and eliminate free speech altogether.

The only way to counter this is to shake off the psychological shackles of intimidation, get past our fear and be more vocal than ever in exercising free speech and our right to protest – because the alternative and what it may entail is nightmarish to even consider. If you care about living in anything like a free society with any modicum of free speech whatsoever, then the message is simple – use it or lose it.