Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Prominent Republicans voice criticism of Obama health plans

March 18, 2009 by  

Prominent Republicans voice criticism of Obama health plansIn an editorial, Newt Gingrich and Rick Tyler blasted President Obama for rescinding the previous administration’s regulations in the area of medical practice.

They singled out his reversal of the regulation which enforces legal protections against discrimination of healthcare professionals who refuse to participate in medical procedures by invoking conscience for particular criticism.

"[The current administration] is signaling that it intends to ignore the law and refuse to protect the civil liberties of healthcare professionals based upon religious or moral conscience," they wrote on newsmax.com.

They noted other policy changes, including the reversal of the ban on federal funding for embroyonic stem cell research and the nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services, as dangerous from the point of view of conscience-rights protection.

Gingrich and Tyler also ascertained that "the most hostile assault against the civil liberties in the medical profession may be yet to come" in the form a promised signing OF the Freedom of Choice Act which would lift federal and state restrictions on abortion.

Newt Gingrich is a former speaker of the House and currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Rick Tyler serves as Gingrich’s spokesman and is the founding director of Renewing American Leadership.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19081386-ADNFCR

Personal Liberty News Desk

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Prominent Republicans voice criticism of Obama health plans”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

    This is the same old political game again that has gone on for 200 years in the U.S. Everything is political and the pot always calls the kettle black.

    Truth is, nothing will be done for the health of the American people. And the best way for people to achieve better health is to get as far away as they can from doctors and hospitals. All the Federal Government can possibly do is screw it up worse than it is, if it is possible.

    • Salmon

      I have had stories related to me about Oregon residents, who have gotten cancer the 2d or numerous times: and were told that the state insurance program would not cover this expense. But, they would send you the pills to do yourself in and pay for them. This may be a foreknowledge of what is planned for the Universal Health Care enrollees on the National level. Oh boy, oh boy!

  • Richard L. Whitford

    This movement was alive and well long before Obama was born. The New Testament teaches that we withdraw from and do not fellowship with evil.

    Eph 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
    10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
    12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

    The civil liberties crowd insists that we do support and fellowship with those who prefer this way of life.

    We have laws on the books under civil rights that do not allow a business owner to refuse service to any given person. They are like this law that Peter confronted when he was sent to Cornelius. That is one of our inalienable rights found among those rights declared in the the Declaration of Independence. It is not mentioned as such but it is among our property rights. We can also find this teaching in the Old Testament in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and other places.

    Ac 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

    In the New Testament we are taught to let the world be the world but we are to be separate just as the Children of Israel were to be politically separate from the kingdoms around them.

    From Paul’s writing we can understand that what applies to the church does not apply to the world and what applies to the world does not apply to the church. There is a long list of martyrs that uphold this contention. The world has tried to force the believer to be of the world even and we are doing at this very hour and it cannot work.

    1Co 5:9 ¶ I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
    10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
    11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
    12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
    13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

    To follow the Christian way is strictly voluntary. There is no coercion in any form. If a denomination, which would include the Muslim faith, tries to force its acceptance it is not of God. It is not for us to judge these people but they will be judged according to the judgment they render. It is sufficient that the Christian be faithful to the teaching of our Savior. Many who are called Christian do not do this.

    The Children of Israel were rebuked when they wanted a king. We have the same problem when we want our government to make decisions for us. Our government cannot prevent fraud or theft. All it can do is set penalties and impose those penalties. The spirit alone can deal with the will. We will continue down hill as long as we choose to default on our own responsibilities.
    Whit

    • Salmon

      Well spoken, Whit!

  • Howard Long MD MPH

    I received no response to the below NIH inquiry or FOIA.

    NIH Department of Clinical Bioethics, Chief, Ezekial Emanuel MD, PhD:
    “This question of “What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?” was posed in 2000 by several researchers at the Department of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health. After reviewing the various fundamental guidelines that exist on the ethics of biomedical research with human subjects e.g. Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, Belmont Report, the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects and others, the authors determined there are 7 requirements that provide a systematic and coherent framework for determining whether clinical research is ethical. These requirements include:
    1. Value enhancements of health or knowledge must be derived from the research.
    2. Scientific validity of the research must be methodologically rigorous.
    3. Fair subject selection scientific objectives, not vulnerability or privilege, and the potential for and distribution of risks and benefits, should determine communities selected as study sites and the inclusion criteria for individual subjects.
    4. Favorable risk benefit ratio within the context of standard clinical practice and the research protocol, risks must be minimized, potential benefits enhanced, and the potential benefits to individuals and knowledge gained for society must outweigh the risks.
    5. Independent review unaffiliated individuals must review the research and approve, amend, or terminate it.
    6. Informed consent individuals should be informed about the research and provide their voluntary consent.
    7. Respect for enrolled subjects should have their privacy protected, the opportunity to withdraw, and their well-being monitored.
    Fulfilling all 7 requirements is necessary and sufficient to make clinical research ethical.”
    Apply these to a widely publicized hormone replacement study in women over 60 by the NIH with major universities, the Women’s Health Initiative, WHI. Are these requirements met?
    Smokers and non-smokers were given estrogen/progestin or placebo, despite oral contraceptive disclosures showing black-box “WARNING. Cigarette smoking increases the risk of serious cardiovascular side effects from oral contraceptive use. This risk increases with age and with heavy smoking – and is quite marked in women over 35 years of age”. The risk of smoking with estrogen/progestin is further emphasized by bar graphs of Layde’s CV mortality rates. These show 250% more CV deaths over age 45 among smokers taking est/progest, than among non-smokers.
    Did the participating physician-scientists adequately warn participant smokers?
    Why would physician-scientists let smokers participate?
    Why would the Study Design of WHI permit smokers?
    ” -Subjects- should have their well-being monitored.” (requirement 7)
    “- Not vulnerability- should determine – inclusion criteria for individual subjects.” (requirement 3 sacrifices smokers in WHI for “science”)
    Is it “good methodology” to mingle a 250% higher risk group (smokers), then conclude a merely 25% higher heart attack rate in the whole group indicates “black box” should apply to non-smokers too, thus imposing painful Dowager’s Hump on millions of American women?

  • John S

    Salmon I love the way you guys talk down Universal Medicine. Do you know that there are people, and not just a few, that do not have any insurance at all?

    Example

    The last company I worked for offered insurance. I turned it down for two reasons.

    On 18000.00 a year I could not afford my portion at 99.00 a week.

    Second

    When it was offered I read the policy carefully. The deductibles were through the roof and I had a operation on one of my feet that was shattered and screwed to gather 5 years ago. It has since fractured again and leaves me in constant pain, walking on it for over 2 years. Some days I can’t walk at all. The insurance co will not cover ANY pretesting problem
    What would you advise me to do. There are many many folks like me. There up against a rock and a hard place. We need universal health coverage plane and simple

    • Carrot1

      John,

      I empathize with your health care dilemma. A pool for those without insurance may be the better alternative to nationalized health care. A plan for such an arrangement would have to be carefully studied.

      There are dangers with the government having access to medical records and passing legislation on health care. While this may seem like a paranoid concern consider a government being in power and one of the ways to stay in power is to stabilize its voting base or destabilize its opponents’ base through health care – the necessary care that is provided or not provided. If you think that this can’t be done because all that they would have is your medical records think again. It’s not that hard to do – just connect the dots between the medical information starting with your ss number and linking it with voter registration information that also requires ss#s.

      Transferring medical records electronically also has to go to the Internal Revenue Service. How would you like to find you are not eligible for health care due to a tax issue? Medical records can also be set up for profiling.

      These are just a few myriad reasons for not wanting nationalized health care. The current administration’s energy czar is already trying to put a bill in motion that would restrict thermostat controls. So it’s not too far fetched to believe that they may also restrict health care provided.

  • Sue Fitchett

    99.00 a week was too much for you to spend at your income level…wait until you have to Pay the new free obama care. You will wish for that 99.00 a week.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.