How Many Canadians Seek Medical Care Outside of Canada?

From National Center for Policy Analysis

There are a growing number of companies providing Canadians with easier access to medically necessary treatments outside the country.  Of course, leaving Canada for medically necessary treatment is nothing new; Canadians have been doing so for many years, either in response to the unavailability of certain treatments, in response to concerns about quality, or in response to long wait times for medically necessary treatment, says Nadeem Esmail, the Fraser Institute's former Director of Health System Performance Studies and Manager of the Alberta Policy Research Center.

How many Canadians receive treatment outside Canada each year, though?  Esmail estimates based on the results of the Fraser Institute's Waiting Your Turn survey and the counts of procedures completed each year in Canada:

• An estimated 44,794 Canadian in total received treatment outside Canada in 2010.  

• This is a notable increase from the 41,006 Canadians estimated to have received treatment outside Canada in 2009.

• The national increase in the estimated number of patients treated outside Canada occurred at the same time as a national increase in the median wait time for medically necessary treatment -- specifically, the national median wait time for treatment after consultation with a specialist was 8.0 weeks in 2009 and 9.3 weeks in 2010.

This estimate likely underestimates the actual number of patients who received treatment outside the country in 2010, says Esmail.

Source: Nadeem Esmail, "Leaving Canada for Medical Care," Fraser Institute, March/April 2011.

For text:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/articles/leaving-canada-for-medical-care.pdf

Has RomneyCare Put ObamaCare on a Path to Repeal?

Investor's Business Daily has an excellent article by Sally Pipes on what RomneyCare has done to Massachusetts and why that experience underscores the urgency of repealing ObamaCare.

The Heritage Foundation provides the following snapshot of how Mitt Romney's plan is destroying Massachusetts:

Of the 410,000 newly insured in Massachusetts, three in four are either paying nothing or very little for their insurance and spending has exploded. 

• The health overhaul was really Medicaid expansion, and with the rolls up nearly 25 percent since 2006, Massachusetts is struggling to pay the bills.
• Despite the near-universal insurance, the state still spends $414 million on uncompensated care, an expense that was promised would disappear.
• Emergency room use has not dropped as predicted --from 2006 to 2008, emergency room use under Mass Care increased by 9 percent.

In addition, private employer insurance costs, far from dropping, have continued to increase.  A 2010 study published in the Forum for Health Economics and Policy found that health insurance premiums in Massachusetts, prior to its overhaul, increased at a rate 3.7 percent slower than the national average.  Post-overhaul, they are increasing 5.8 percent faster.  The individual mandate, as onerous as it is, is set at a level to encourage gaming the system, says Pipes.

• A family with an income of $55,000 in 2014 will face the choice of paying $4,428 a year for health insurance or a $550 fine.

• Given that insurance will be available on demand, it is rational to pay the fine until a serious illness strikes.

Missouri Says a Resounding "No" to ObamaCare

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama's administration and giving Republicans their first political victory in a national campaign to overturn the controversial health care law passed by Congress in March.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Oklahoma Voters May Nullify Fed Health Care Law in November

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

Voters in Oklahoma will be given a chance in November to decide whether they want to reject the core of the recently-enacted national health care reform, which includes taxpayer-funded abortion and requires individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, thanks to a legislative action that bypassed the objections of pro-abortion Democrat Gov. Brad Henry.

The state’s House of Representatives approved Senate Joint Resolution 59 with a strong bipartisan majority of 88-9. SJR 59 allows citizens to vote up or down a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit “forced participation in a health care system,” and allow individuals to pay directly for health services and carry private health insurance.

The House had waited to act on the Senate resolution, in hopes of overriding the governor’s veto of a resolution that would have enacted the ban via statute. However, after the veto override attempt failed last week, the House enacted the version putting the question to voters.

Because the SJR 59 is a referendum question, the decision will bypass the governor and go directly to the people on the November 2 state ballot. The measure is based on American Legislative Exchange Council’s model Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act.

If enacted, Oklahoma will follow the lead of Virginia, Idaho, and Arizona in challenging President Barack Obama’s signature legislation on the basis of state law, but with a twist: the Virginia challenge to the health care bill is based on a state statute, while Oklahoma would up the ante with a constitutional amendment.

Voters in Florida and Arizona will also go to the polls in November to vote on constitutional amendments opting their states out of the national health care law.

“This constitutional amendment will provide Oklahomans with a powerful legal protection against the federal government’s attempt to insert itself into everyday decisions that affect their finances and health,” said Rep. Mike Thompson (R-Oklahoma City), the measure’s sponsor in the House.

He said that legislators were “adamant” that Oklahomans have an opportunity to reject a federal takeover of their health care.

“States have the authority to protect the liberty of their citizens,” Thompson said. “Clearly a close, functional relationship between doctors and their patients is preferable to one dictated by the federal government.”

Gov. Henry’s office condemned the passage of SJR 59, saying that the resolution would only drive Oklahoma into a futile lawsuit with the federal government that would be ruled unconstitutional for conflicting with federal law.

Twenty states are already suing the federal government for constitutional overreach in enacting President Obama’s health care reform.

The attorneys general of Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Utah, Alabama, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, South Dakota, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Mississippi, and Arizona have filed a joint lawsuit in US District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Virginia is engaged in a separate lawsuit filed with the federal district court in Richmond, where the Justice Department has filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the case.

In all cases, the states assert that the federal mandate on individuals carrying health insurance or pay penalties, violates the prohibition against the direct taxation of individuals outlined in Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the US Constitution. They also invoke the Tenth Amendment reserving to states all powers not delegated to the federal government.

Boehner: Republicans ‘Committed to Repealing the Health Care Law’ If They Take Back House

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) . (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Tuesday that the House Republican leadership is “committed to repealing the health care law” if Republicans win a majority in the House in the November elections.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Obama’s Nominee to Run Medicare: ‘Please Don’t Put Your Faith in Market Forces’

Dr. Donald Berwick, nominated by President Barack Obama to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that runs Medicare, published an article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), advising leaders of Britain’s socialized health care system: “Please don’t put your faith in market forces.”

Read the rest of this entry >>

Mass Action Lawsuit Opposing ObamaCare to be Filed by The Justice Foundation

Grassroots America -- We the People (GAWTP), a conservative grassroots organization in Tyler, Texas, is encouraging individuals to file a mass action lawsuit regarding the unconstitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010, and the companion Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 signed on March 30, 2010. The Justice Foundation, a non-profit litigation firm in San Antonio, Texas, which represents clients in public interest and limited government cases, along with a team of lawyers throughout Texas, is representing these plaintiffs.

"We believe this Health Care Act is unconstitutional and interferes with our individual rights and liberty to make our own health care decisions," said JoAnn Fleming, Executive Director of Grassroots America -- We the People. "This constitutes a gross abuse of federal power and is a liberty-destroying offense we simply will not tolerate. We are therefore seeking relief from these intolerable acts through the third and equal branch of government -- the judicial system -- and we intend to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court."

This effort, known as Project Liberty USA, seeks ten thousand plaintiffs from across the country with the same beliefs. The health care law is being challenged on the basis of the Ninth Amendment, economic and personal liberties, and rights -- which are reserved to the People -- and the Tenth Amendment, which reserves rights to individuals and to the States. It is also based on the First Amendment, including individuals who object to being forced to pay for abortions in violation of their free exercise of religion.

One of the unique aspects of this litigation is that The Justice Foundation is also representing women (and men) who have been devastated by abortion. These plaintiffs regret their abortions and do not want their tax dollars going to fund abortions through government mandates in these health care acts.

Sanford Says SC Will Not Help Implement Socialized Medicine

From Bloomburg Business Week
By Meg Kinnard

South Carolina will not operate a new, high-risk health insurance pool for people unable to get private coverage, Gov. Mark Sanford said Friday, leaving the administration of such a program up to the federal government.

"It represents yet another extension on unfunded mandates coming from Washington to South Carolina," said Sanford, a Republican, who said he had made his decision known in a letter sent to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The high-risk pools for those unable to obtain private insurance are part of federal health care reform signed last month by President Barack Obama. States have until the end of the day Friday to tell Washington if they'll operate their own pools or defer implementation and oversight to the federal government.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Despite Dismissive Media, Palin's 'Death Panels' Resurface in White House Rationing Schemes

From NewsBusters
By Lachlan Markay

PolitiFact called it the Lie of the Year, and journalists left and right (but mostly left) dismissed the claim as hyperbole at best, and fear-mongering propaganda at worst.

But Sarah Palin's "death panel" comment may not be as off the mark as so many have claimed. Don't take her word for it. White House budget director Peter Orszag apparently agrees.

Well, Orszag didn't specifically address Palin's claim, but his description of Medicare's new Independent Payment Advisory Board tried to cast health care rationing in nice rosy terms.

Speaking at the Economic Club of Washington, Orszag stated:

The only real solution to our long-term fiscal imbalance, because it's driven disproportionately by the rate at which health care costs grow, is to move towards a health care system that is based on quality and efficiency, rather than quantity…

Everyone agrees that we can no longer afford to just pay for quantity. That is a fee for service system where doctors and hospitals are reimbursed based on volume. I think folks have not really focused on the Medicare commission, the Independent Payment Advisory Board that's created. This institution could prove to be far more important to the future of our fiscal health than for example the Congressional Budget Office. It has an enormous amount of potential power…

So this Independent Payment Advisory Board has the power and the responsibility to put forward proposals to hit a pretty aggressive set of targets over the long term. And furthermore, the proposals take effect automatically, unless Congress not only specifically votes them down but the President signs that bill. So the default is now switched in a very important way on the biggest driver over long-term cost, which is the Medicare program…

Again, a lot will depend on whether it realizes its potential, and how the culture develops, but it has statutory power to put forward proposals to reduce health care cost growth overtime and improve quality, and those proposals take effect automatically if Congress ignores them, or if Congress votes them down and the President vetoes that bill. So in other words, inertia now plays to the side of this independent board.

So health care costs disproportionately drive our fiscal train wreck of a federal budget into the red, and this panel -- made up of unelected non-doctor bureaucrats -- has been charged with meeting "a pretty aggressive set" of financial targets by reducing the quantity of medical care Americans receive.

Boy, that sounds a lot like rationing. In fact, that's pretty much the definition of the word: to "restrict the consumption of a relatively scarce commodity." It doesn't matter if care is being rationed "for the public good" or who the bureaucrats are that populate the panel, or what they do (unless they are doctors, but in this case they aren't). Care will be rationed.

Now, the bill claims otherwise. It states that the Medicare panel "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care ... or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria." Phew. Disaster averted. Palin marginalized. But wait, just a couple paragraphs further, the bill demands that the panel "give priority to recommendations that extend Medicare solvency."

Well Orszag just informed us that the federal budget is plummeting towards fiscal catastrophe, and Medicare is the primary driver. So if Medicare itself is to remain solvent, deep, deep cuts need to be made. Orszag seems to realize this fact -- hence the "pretty aggressive" targets.

Reducing Medicare costs is the only way to keep the system solvent, and Orszag has just informed us that reducing the quantity of care is the way to do that. He is not the first administration official to say so. Reducing costs takes precedence over the legislation's "rationing" restrictions, so as long as Medicare is up to its eyes in red ink, rationing will be a cause for concern.

The bill also requires the panel "include recommendations that target reductions in Medicare program spending to sources of excess cost growth." As you may have expected, the panel, not Medicare patients and their doctors, determines what constitutes "excess cost growth."

Now, there is the question of whether or not the Medicare board can or should be called a "death panel," but that is a question of style, not substance.

Palin wrote in her recent book "Going Rogue,"

Since health care would have to be rationed if it were promised to everyone, it would therefore lead to harm for many individuals not able to receive the government care. That leads, of course, to death…

The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally.

In other words, there is no euthanasia involved, but by limiting the options available to American health care consumers with the explicit goal of saving on costs, the panel -- again, not populated by doctors -- is necessarily hindering the quality of care patients can receive. For the patient who is denied treatment in the name of Medicare's solvency, it is indeed a "death panel."

PolitiFact did not return a request for comment regarding its Lie of the Year. But the watchdog site was far from the only outlet to disregard Palin's concerns.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell gleefully proclaimed the former Alaska Governor "Palinocchio." The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly called the "death panel" debate a "sideshow … from a very serious debate." The Nation's Richard Kim claimed the entire issue was bred from "hysteria."

But with Orszag's statement, it seems well within reason that the new bill -- though we're still in the process of deciphering its contents -- will create a Palinian death panel, not to "euthanize granny," but simply to ration care. Of course he is not the first administration official -- nor the first journalist -- to laud the necessity of health care rationing.

This panel will decide which treatments will be offered or covered by insurance companies. If you relied on a treatment that is no longer covered, well, best of luck to you.

Lachlan Markay is an associate with Dialog New Media.

Does Romneycare = Obamacare? Cato Says Yes

From The Examiner
By Mark Tapscott

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is widely considered to be the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, but the biggest obstacle he may have to overcome could well be Romneycare, one of his signature programs while serving as the Bay State's chief executive.

More than a few people within and without the GOP - including most notably President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - contend that Romney's much celebrated health care reform of 2006 is quite similar to the Obamacare program that became law in 2010.

Romney strongly disputes that characterization, but the very fact it is becoming an issue is indicative of its seriousness as an obstacle to his winning the GOP presidential nomination.

Now comes the Cato Institute with a searing video critique of Romneycare that focuses on the major ways in which it resembles Obamacare. Watch this video and you will have a sense of the urgency of this issue for the Romney candidacy:

Rhode Island Bishop Severs Hospital from Pro-Obamacare Catholic Health Association

O for a couple of hundred more like this! We salute and thank Bishop Tobin for being a faithful and principled shepherd of souls.

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island has denounced the Catholic Health Association for supporting the abortion-laden federal health care reform law, and has asked that a local hospital be removed from membership in the group, reported ETWN Friday.

CHA, a for-profit trade association personally wooed by President Obama to support his health care overhaul, garnered heavy criticism from U.S. bishops for supporting the massive bill despite its lack of a ban on federal abortion funding – effectively making it the most pro-abortion piece of legislation since Roe v. Wade.

The CHA, which stands to profit from health care reform, in July 2009 had already pledged a large sum of money to the Obama administration to help ease passage of the overhaul, well before the final draft of the bill materialized.

Tobin told CHA director Sr. Carol Keehan in a March 29 letter that he was “very disappointed that the Catholic Health Association, under your leadership, publicly endorsed the recent health care legislation that was passed and signed into law.”

“This action was taken despite the fact that the legislation will very possibly provide additional public funding for abortion and threaten the freedom of conscience of Catholic individuals and institutions,” wrote the outspokenly pro-life bishop.

Tobin called out the group for paving the way to immense confusion among Catholics concerning the bill: “Your enthusiastic support of the legislation, in contradiction to the position of the Bishops of the United States, provided an excuse for members of Congress, misled the public and cause serious scandal for many members of the Church," he said.

Therefore, he said, “I am writing to request that St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island, sponsored by the Diocese of Providence, be removed from the membership list and mailing list of the Catholic Health Association.”

The bishop also requested "that our name be removed" as “even the association with CHA is now embarrassing.”

In conclusion, Tobin expressed hope that CHA "will review its mission and will find new opportunities to renew its commitment to human life, including that of unborn children."

"I also hope that the Association will clearly support the teaching mission of the Church as expressed by the Bishops, whose obligation it is to preach the Gospel of Christ and apply the teachings of the Church to the important moral issues of our time," he added.

Bishop Tobin had also entered into the health care debate in November, when he demanded that Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy apologize for accusing the U.S. bishops of not being "pro-life" and of "fanning the flames of dissent and discord" for refusing to support the legislation. Tobin called the pro-abortion Catholic congressman "a disappointment to the Catholic Church and the citizens of Rhode Island."

The House Cleaning Begins: Stupak to Retire

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) plans to announce his retirement today, Democrats briefed on his decision said. Stupak, the leader of a pro-life faction within his party, had received death threats and was under intense political pressure after he agreed to support the Democratic health care reform legislation, even though pro-life groups insisted that it would allow federal funds to be used for abortion.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Obama's Private Army Now Law; Hidden in ObamaCare Bill

New States Join Courtroom Revolt Against ObamaCare

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

Five more U.S. states have now joined the attorneys general of a dozen other states in a lawsuit aimed at toppling the federal government’s new health care law.

The states assert that portions of the health care legislation signed into law by President Obama on March 23 amounts to constitutional overreach that infringes on the right of states and individuals to manage their own affairs.

"We welcome the partnership of Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona as we continue fighting to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens and the sovereignty of our states," said Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum in a statement.

“On behalf of the residents in Florida and the states joining our efforts, we are committed to aggressively pursuing this lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to prevent this unprecedented expansion of federal powers, impact upon state sovereignty, and encroachment on our freedom,” McCollum continued.

The attorneys general of Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington had already banded together with Florida to file a lawsuit against the federal government with the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

The lawsuit contends that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) infringes upon the constitutional rights of the residents of states by forcing all citizens and legal residents to carry qualified health insurance or pay a financial penalty.

The states contend that the insurance mandate exceeds the limited scope of the powers granted to the federal government under Article I of the US Constitution. Furthermore, they assert that the tax penalty for not carrying insurance violates the prohibition against the direct taxation of individuals outlined in Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution.

The suit also contends that the PPACA infringes on the sovereignty of the states guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by forcing the states to abide by new operating rules and mandating that they spend billions of dollars to support the new health care system, when they already face severe budget crises.

Virginia has also filed its own separate lawsuit against the federal government, reiterating many of the concerns of its fellow states. Virginia has already passed a state law that expressly forbids the government from mandating that citizens carry health insurance or pay a penalty.

The addition of the five new states brings the total number of states involved in the Florida-led lawsuit against the federal government over ObamaCare to nineteen, including Virginia.

A hearing for scheduling the Florida-led suit is set to take place April 14, 2010 at 9 a.m. central time at the Federal Courthouse in Pensacola, Florida.

ObamaCare Congressman Reverses Position on Constitution, Reads Statement Saying He Now Supports It

Representative Phil Hare (ObamaCare Democrat-Illinois) who ignited a firestorm of controversy this week for telling a town hall audience he's "not worried about the Constitution" on the new health care law said his comments were "taken completely out of context."

"I don't care about the Constitution ... it doesn't matter to me."

Hare's New Position on the U. S. Constitution:

Read the rest of this entry >>

Fla. Doc's Sign Warns Off Obama Supporters

We love to see a patriot shouting in the tyrant's face. This is the kind of civic action needed to reverse socialism and defeat the thugs. Let ACORN provide medical care to Obamunists.

A sign on the door of Dr. Jack Cassell's office in Mount Dora, Fla., tells patients "If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years." Photo: Deirdre Lewis / AP

A central Florida urologist has posted a sign on his office door warning supporters of President Barack Obama to find a different doctor.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Heritage Foundation: $1 Billion AT&T Headache is Just ObamaCare’s First Side Effect

From The Heritage Foundation

In the closing days of the Congressional health care debate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told the National Association of Counties: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Today marks the end of just the first week of life under Obamacare and Speaker Pelosi has been proven right: we are just now finding out what is in it. This past Friday, AT&T, the biggest U.S. telephone company, announced that it would take a $1 billion charge against earnings thanks to tax changes buried in the 2,300+ page bill. $1 billion. That is a full third of AT&T’s $3 billion earnings for the fourth quarter of 2009.

The tax charges stem from changes Obamacare makes to the tax treatment of prescription-drug benefits for retirees. Companies used to be able to deduct part of their costs for providing drug benefits to their retirees, but Obamacare cancels that deduction. Roland McDevitt, director of health care research at Towers Watson, tells the Wall Street Journal, they “have a stream of tax benefits they are losing way out in the future.” Since companies had counted on these deductions for current and future retirees as an existing asset under the old law, accounting rules require firms to take the full loss for the change in the same quarter in which the tax law is changed. Hence Friday’s announcement to inform shareholders that AT&T’s bottom line was about to take a $1 billion hit.

AT&T’s billion-dollar Obamacare headache is so large due to the size (281,000 employees) of the company. Piper Jaffray & Co. analyst Chris Larsen tells Bloomberg: “Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees.” And changes to current and future retirees’ health care seem to be exactly what will AT&T will do as a side effect of Obamacare. AT&T wrote in their Friday filing: “As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company.”

And AT&T is not alone. Towers Watson estimates that just this tax change alone will eliminate $14 billion in U.S. corporate profits. That’s $14 billion less American employers have to spend creating new jobs when our unemployment rate is still 9.7%. And AT&T is not the only company informing employees that Obamacare is going to mean worse care for them. Verizon Communications, the second biggest U.S. phone company, told employees last week that Obamacare “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”

The Heritage Foundation will be keeping you apprised of all of the consequences of Obamacare as they are learned with our new Foundry feature “Side Effects.” Already our health care experts have identified negative intended and unintended consequences from the legislation to children’s health insurance and health insurance taxes.

The American people already do not like this law. But to repeal it, we must keep Americans educated about all of Obamacare’s failures and offer our “Second Opinion” on what conservative idea would fix it.

Here's the Socialized Medicine ObamaCare Promises

A dying patient had to ring a hospital switchboard on his mobile to ask for a glass of water, after nurses ignored his pleas.

Derek Sauter and his wife Susan on holiday in Portugal in 2007

From Sky News
By Steve Davies

Officials from the South London NHS Trust have apologised to the family of Derek Sauter, who later died in hospital of pneumonia.

The 60-year-old did not receive a "proper and professional standard of care" when he was admitted with a chest infection in June 2008.

A formal investigation is being conducted into his death, after it was found his oxygen levels went unchecked for 11 hours and were 35% lower than recommended.

Ruth Sauter, the patient's daughter, said she was disgusted by the treatment her father had received.

She told The Daily Mail: "His condition was not life threatening, and nurses had specific instructions to keep close tabs on him.

"'But their appalling lack of care, and cruel behaviour killed my father...It's so much worse knowing that he died alone, thirsty and scared on that ward."

After being admitted in the morning, he was given antibiotics and oxygen, but was later forced to ring his wife to tell her that he was not allowed any more water as he had earlier knocked over a cup.

After ringing the switchboard, a doctor was called to the ward, only for a nurse to tell him that the patient was "overreacting".

The hospital was unable to comment directly on the case, as it is part of the family's legal proceedings.

A spokeswoman said: "South London Healthcare NHS Trust would like to apologise to the Sauter family for the failings in care that Derek Sauter received.

"The trust believes that Mr Sauter did not receive a proper and professional standard of care that he and his family had a right to expect."

States Consider Legislative Plan to Opt-Out of ObamaCare’s Abortion Mandate

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

Legislators in over a dozen states are considering a pro-life plan that would opt their states out of a major abortion mandate in the health care reform bill passed last Sunday.

The legislation, developed by Americans United for Life (AUL), intends to take the abortion-health care fight to the states. It exploits a provision in the Senate health care bill that explicitly allows the state-run health insurance exchanges to prevent federal money from subsidizing health insurance companies that offer co-pays for abortion.

The proposed model legislation is called the “Federal Abortion-Mandate Opt-Out Act.” In a statement, Charmaine Yoest, President of AUL, said AUL’s legal team would work with state leaders to tailor legislation to each state’s particular needs.

“The states are very interested in this, we are getting inundated with requests for the language,” said Mary Harned, a health care expert on AUL’s legal team, in a telephone interview with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN).

“This legislation is explicitly allowed in the language of the health care reform bill. So it is definitely something that is appropriate and that can be done,” continued Harned. “We will certainly see some opposition to the bill in the state legislatures.”

The legislation also cites federal court precedents that would support any state’s decision to prohibit federal subsidies to abortion-providing health insurers. The bill states the “decision not to fund abortion places no governmental obstacle in the path of a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy” and that “it is permissible for a State to engage in unequal subsidization of abortion and other medical services to encourage alternative activity deemed in the public interest.”

The model bill also cites an analysis of the Guttmacher Institute that showed that women are more likely to opt for abortion, when it is subsidized with taxpayer dollars, especially in the case of women on Medicaid.

AUL informed LifeSiteNews.com in an e-mail that so far state legislators from Kansas, Georgia, Delaware, Kentucky, California, Oregon, South Carolina, New Mexico, Ohio, Maine, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Maryland had contacted them regarding how to enact opt-out legislation in their own states. AUL said they have received hundreds of similar requests via e-mail and are still sorting through them.

Poll: Most Want GOP to Keep Fighting on Health Bill

From CBS News

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

---

A CBS News poll released Wednesday finds that nearly two in three Americans want Republicans in Congress to continue to challenge parts of the health care reform bill.

The Senate version of the legislation was passed by the House Sunday night, and President Obama signed it into law on Tuesday. The House also passed a separate reconciliation bill, which cannot be filibustered, that is now being debated in the Senate. That bill would make changes to the bill already signed into law.

Senate Republicans are now challenging whether the bill is truly a budget reconciliation bill (which is what makes it filibuster-proof) and inserting amendments designed to slow down passage. Republican attorneys general are also planning to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

The poll finds that 62 percent want Congressional Republicans to keep challenging the bill, while 33 percent say they should not do so. Nearly nine in ten Republicans and two in three independents want the GOP to keep challenging. Even 41 percent of Democrats support continued challenges.

Americans are split about the fact that the bill largely lacked bipartisan support. Fifty percent said they were disappointed that the bill did not have support from both parties, while 44 percent said that it doesn't matter.

Most see the bill as an important achievement for the president. Fifty-two percent called passage a major accomplishment for Mr. Obama, up from 46 percent before Sunday's vote. Thirteen percent called it a minor accomplishment, and 32 percent said passage was not an accomplishment.

For the new poll, CBS News re-interviewed 649 adults interviewed just before the House vote in a CBS News poll conducted March 18-21. The findings suggest an improvement in perceptions of the legislation: While 37 percent approved of it before the vote, 42 percent approved afterward.