Media Kowtows to Supreme Leader



Obama: "There Are Countries Where a Single-Payer System Works Pretty Well"

President Obama told the American Medical Association on Monday that he thinks single-payer health care systems -- socialized medicine -- work "pretty well" in other countries, but that he does not want to create such a system here because he wants to "build on our traditions." In fact, the predictable endgame of the health care plan Obama is trying to rush through Congress this summer is socialized medicine.

We now know Obama does not oppose socialized medicine in principle or on practical grounds. So on what grounds does he oppose it? Just one: rhetorical. If Obama candidly said he is trying to put America on the path to government-run health care, it would excite exactly the sort of massive national grassroots opposition needed to kill his plan. So what Obama is doing is paving a one-way street to a socialized medicine while expressly denying he is doing so -- and while accusing those who point out what he is doing of being untruthful.

Some in the liberal press are helping Obama perpetrate this big lie. The coverage of his AMA speech provides a stunning example specifically related to Obama's declaration that single-payer health care systems have worked "pretty well."

The full context of Obama's remark is available from the official transcript posted on the White House Website. One paragraph of this transcript reads:

"Let me also say that -- let me also address a illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I'll be honest, there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe -- and I've taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief -- that it's important for our efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth."

On Tuesday afternoon, I ran a search of the Nexis "major newspapers" database to see if any major American newspaper had quoted Obama's remark that "there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well." I searched the terms "Obama," "single-payer" and "pretty well." There was not a single hit.

Then I discovered, also using Nexis, that The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times had all artfully quoted words Obama said both immediately before and after he said single payer systems work "pretty well" -- without actually quoting his statement about single-payer systems working "pretty well."

The Washington Post reported it this way: "In his speech, Obama said, 'Let me also address an illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. … When you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth."

The Post artfully replaced Obama's statement that "I'll be honest, there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well" with three dots.

The New York Times reported it this way: "'The public option is not your enemy,' Mr. Obama said. 'It is your friend, I believe.' Saying it would 'keep insurance companies honest,' the president dismissed as 'illegitimate' the claims of critics that a public insurance option amounts to 'Trojan horse for a single-payer system' run by the government."

Artfully using broken phrases, the Times was able to report Obama's attack on his critics while avoiding his statement that single-payer systems work "pretty well."

It was the Los Angeles Times, however, that struck upon the cleverest tactic. It reported what Obama said this way: "'Let me also address an illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system,' Obama said. 'But I believe, and I've taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief, that it's important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States."

Just as Obama was about to say he believes single-payer systems work "pretty well," the Times broke off the quote and inserted the words "Obama said." It then resumed the quote with the words "but I believe," which come after Obama said he believes single-payer systems work "pretty well."

The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are not part of an adversarial press asking tough questions of a president trying to radically reorganize the health care system. They are his accomplices.

In his AMA speech, Obama again said he supports creating a "public option" government-run health insurance company and mandating that every American buy health insurance. The only thing he isn't calling for now is mandating that everyone buy their mandatory insurance from the government company. Once the "public option" is in place, slight changes in regulations and taxes can make it the only option. When that happens, don't expect to see it reported plainly in a major paper.

SOURCE

The media obviously knew that they had to shield Obama from the obvious challenge: "Name one".






Welsh IVF blunder clinic lost another couple's embryos

The HFEA should have closed this clinic down after earlier reports of negligence but they were instead obsessed with pursuing Dr. Taranissi over paperwork issues

The fertility clinic that transferred a woman’s last embryo into another patient has apologised for losing the embryos of another couple. The latest couple, who do not want to be identified, said that they were devastated by the loss of their embryos at the IVF Wales clinic in Cardiff in 2004, which happened when the tube and needle transferring them to the woman’s womb became disconnected. The clinic said in a statement that an apology had been made to the couple and that the incident happened because of an equipment error.

The man, from the South Wales valleys, told BBC Radio Wales that the doctor dealing with them had at first been looking at the wrong notes. “It became apparent the doctor was referring to a different couple’s notes, from Swansea, I believe. When we raised that issue, that we weren’t actually from Swansea, they realised. If they can’t get something as relatively straightforward as record-keeping right it doesn’t bode well,” he said.

His partner said that when they went back to the clinic for the embryo transfer, “unfortunately during this time they lost our embryos. I can’t put it into words, I really can’t. I just cried. We were devastated. We viewed our embryos seconds before it happened. You look at these embryos and think they’re your babies.”

The couple decided to talk about their experience after hearing about the couple from Bridgend, South Wales, whose last remaining embryo was implanted in the wrong woman by mistake. The woman who had had the wrong embryo implanted had a termination when she found out about the error.

The Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust has paid the couple, identified only as Deborah and Paul, whose embryo was wrongly transplanted an unidentified sum after admitting liability for gross failures in care. The couple had been hoping to try for a second baby with their last remaining embryo in 2007 when they were told that it had been implanted in another woman. The mistake occurred when more than one patient’s embryos were temporarily stored in an incubator. A trainee embryologist failed to carry out “fail-safe” witnessing procedures.

The trust said that systems had since been improved, in line with recommendations made in a report by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority investigators in relation to the case. In the latest incident the couple were not charged and they accepted the offer of a further free cycle of treatment.

Janet Evans, the clinical director of IVF Wales, said: “This was an unfortunate but extremely rare failure in a standard piece of equipment used for embryo transfer around the world. We have since changed the equipment that we use. The incident was investigated by IVF Wales staff and a personal apology was made. “The incident was reported to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) as part of the incident alert register so other centres could benefit from the information.

“IVF Wales is regularly inspected, as are all units in the UK, by the HFEA. The unit maintains its licence with no conditions, which demonstrates HFEA satisfaction with our quality of care.”

SOURCE







Amazing: Tough new Australian laws to make homebirths illegal

Only a few generations ago, all of us came into the world at home. How can something so natural be made illegal?

HOMEBIRTHS will become illegal under tough new laws that prevent women using midwives to have children outside hospitals. The move is set to drive homebirths underground, with expectant mothers and their babies at risk. There are fears women determined to have a homebirth will "go it alone" like birthing advocate Janet Fraser, whose baby died during a natural water birth in April, The Daily Telegraph reports.

Under the draft Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, released last week, a midwife cannot be registered unless she has insurance. But with insurance companies and the Government so far refusing to include homebirths in the indemnity scheme, midwives will face being de-registered if they attend a homebirth.

Women's groups accuse the Rudd Government of stripping women of rights by forcing them into hospitals. Australian College of Midwives boss Dr Barbara Vernon said the Government's intention was obvious. "I had been optimistic until now when you can see it in black and white," she said. "Even though only less than half a per cent of women have homebirths, they should have the same rights as a woman who chooses to have a caesarean. Homebirths won't stop."

About 150 midwives do homebirths in Australia. Called independent or private midwives, most do not work in a hospital and are uninsured. But from July 2010, they will no longer be able to call themselves midwives even though they are trained. Only those insured and registered can use the term midwife, otherwise they face a $30,000 fine.

There are about 700 homebirths a year but some say this may be as high as 2100 as they are under-reported. For TV presenter and marriage celebrant Elizabeth Trevan, giving birth to her 18-month old twins Nash and Harvey at home was an "overwhelming experience." "It breaks my heart to hear that the Government will do this," she said. "This is about choice. "The Government should be driving this and helping midwives who want to (do) homebirths. They will never be able to afford insurance."

Home Births Australia secretary Justine Caines said the new law took away the rights of women. "It technically makes homebirthing illegal," she said. The Royal Australasian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is against homebirths. [Well, they would be, wouldn't they? It is competition for them]

SOURCE