What Americans Know About Religious Freedom

Most Americans know that religious freedom is one of the most basic freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Frequently called the “first freedom,” freedom of religion is prominent in the American founding documents and gives rise to many other freedoms.

It is a fundamental human right — one that is now protected in the laws of many nations around the world and in global compacts like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Americans generally recognize and revere religious freedom as one of the unalienable freedoms they can claim.

Yet despite Americans’ awareness of religious freedom and a common perception that it is something of profound worth, research suggests that many Americans aren’t entirely clear about what it means. As a result, they also don’t fully understand why it is so critical and what it requires.

Studies do suggest that most Americans grasp the basic concept. For the average citizen, religious freedom is the right enjoyed by many in the free world to believe the things about God and about moral truth that they choose to believe, as well as the right to honor those beliefs in worship, if they want to. Intuitively, this makes sense. It would not be right for someone to be coerced in matters of religious belief or morality, or prohibited from worshipping according to their conscience.[1]

The Rest of Religious Freedom

But while these private and inward activities are vital parts of religious freedom, they do not encompass the whole of it. Religious freedom is actually much broader and deeper than this description suggests. More fundamentally, religious freedom — akin to “freedom of conscience” — is the human right to think and believe and also to express and act upon what one deeply believes according to the dictates of his or her moral conscience. This freedom applies to those who adhere to religious beliefs and those who do not.

The full picture of religious freedom reveals a deep liberty that goes much further than the right to believe as one chooses and that extends well beyond the right to private devotion in one’s place of worship or home. Indeed, religious freedom is not merely interior and private, to be enjoyed internally in our minds and in the privacy of personal life. It also incorporates the right to act according to one’s moral beliefs and convictions. And more than the freedom to worship privately, it is the right to to live one’s faith freely and in public.

Beliefs lead to actions, and freedom to believe, without the ability to act on that belief within the bounds of law, is no freedom at all. Most will agree that moral and religious beliefs don’t mean much if they don’t influence the way we live. In other words, we expect religious beliefs to influence the way that people behave, how they raise families and how they treat others. And indeed, religious freedom protects the right of individuals to act in line with their religious beliefs and moral convictions. Religious freedom does not merely enable us to contemplate our convictions; it enables us to execute them.

Because of this, religion cannot be confined to the sphere of private life. Certainly religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their religion within the walls of private spaces. But religious and moral speech is also protected in the free air of the public domain. Whether in the town hall, in the newspaper column, on the Internet or elsewhere in the public sphere, people with moral convictions are entitled by their religious freedom to share those convictions, to reason and persuade, and to advocate their vision for society.

Research suggests, in fact, that religious people in the United States contribute to, enrich and improve society. They tend to demonstrate a disproportionate level of social virtues like neighborliness, generosity, service and civic engagement. Hence it is not only required by religious freedom for religious people and their voices to be welcome in the public sphere; it strengthens the civic fabric of society.[2]

Practicing and Protecting Religious Freedom

The fact that religious freedom is public and that it involves more than mere belief does not, of course, mean that it overwhelms all other considerations in society. The purpose of a democracy is to accommodate the diverse interests of all its members. Religious freedom and freedom of conscience are vital because they help sustain this system of peaceful coexistence, and they must be balanced against other considerations, such as the rights of others, the law and public safety. However, because these freedoms are so fundamental to human dignity, and because they contribute so much to society, they merit careful protection.

Such protection is the responsibility of all citizens who value their freedom and recognize that one’s own freedoms are only as secure as those of others. Protecting religious freedom also requires that it is understood fully and respected in its entirety. An inadequate understanding of religious freedom can be problematic if it leads, for example, to policy and laws that define it too narrowly and protect it too feebly. Ignorance of religious freedom can also, without care, allow for it to be slowly and subtly eroded, leaving this fundamental liberty exposed or compromised. A robust sense of religious freedom — an appreciation for its full meaning — is required for it to endure and to flourish.

[1]See “Survey Fact Sheet: What Americans Know About Religious Freedom,” American Religious Freedom Program, accessed January 14, 2012, http://religiousfreedom.org/research/detail/survey-fact-sheet-americans-views-on-religious-freedom; and“What It Means to Be an American,” Brookings Institute and Public Religion Research Institute, accessed January 14, 2012, http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0906_american_attitudes.aspx.

[2]See Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010).

LDS Newsroom

A newly hired conservative political analyst for CNN says the more Americans learn about the Democrats’ healthcare legislation, the less they like it.A vote could occur as early as Sunday in the House on the Democrats’ healthcare bill.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) needs 216 votes to pass the measure. On Thursday, Republicans lost an effort to force House Democrats to hold a direct vote on the measure.

Erick Erickson is the editor of Redstate.com and a political contributor for CNN and its new program John King, USA, which debuts Monday night. He says the odds are in favor of Democrats passing the bill in the midst of widespread public opposition.

“I will guarantee you this, that one way or the other there will be a Resurrection Sunday this year — but not for healthcare if it doesn’t make it past Easter,” he predicts.

Erickson believes Democrats who support the planned government takeover of healthcare are blinded by their liberal ideology. He says that many lawmakers go to Washington with a mindset that they have been elected to use their best judgment — and that “the people back home” lack the facts in determining how pieces of legislation will benefit them.

“The problem for the Democrats in this case is that the more facts people do learn, the less and less they like healthcare,” says Erickson. “But they are so removed and insular in Washington from the rest of the nation, they’re going to be in for a very rude awakening if they pass this measure and then go home for the Easter holiday.”

The House will first have to approve the Senate healthcare bill, and then both chambers will pass a package of fixes agreed to in negotiations with the White House.

Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=942684

I wanted to wait until after Scott Brown won the election before posting this article from The Daily Beast.  Many at Free Republic will be angry that The Daily Beast has credited Mitt for Scott Brown’s win, but they sure did lay out a pretty convincing case for Mitt’s involvement which one cannot easily lay aside.

Mitt Romney on Hannity at Scott Brown Victory Party

Here it is from The Daily Beast:

If Scott Brown pulls off an upset in the race to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate, he may have Mitt Romney to thank. Samuel P. Jacobs on the 2012 GOP presidential hopeful’s hidden hand.

There are a number of forces driving Republican Scott Brown’s surprising surge in the Massachusetts special Senate election campaign. He’s benefiting from public anger over the Obama administration’s health-care reform plan. He’s buoyed by a tide of cash from around the country, donated by conservatives eager to send a message by upsetting Democratic front-runner Martha Coakley. And then there’s the lackluster campaign Coakley herself has run.

From the start, Brown has been counseled by members of the Shawmut Group, a Boston-based consulting firm that acts as the Romney political brain trust in exile.

Largely overlooked in assessing Brown’s prospects: the hidden hand of Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor headlined at a fundraiser for Brown last October.  And Romney has helped Brown raise money outside the state as well. “I know Scott and how determined he is to win. I’ve campaigned for him, raised money on his behalf, and we’re doing all we can to help him over the finish line,” Romney wrote supporters last Monday. Brown, 50, raised $1.3 million that day.

But lest anyone accuse Romney of being a Johnny-come-lately—stepping up only as Brown has vaulted from sacrificial lamb to serious threat—the 2008 presidential hopeful has lent crucial support behind the scenes from the start of Brown’s campaign. Ever since he entered the race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Brown has been counseled by members of the Shawmut Group, a Boston-based consulting firm that acts as the Romney political brain trust in exile. Among the many Romney disciples running Brown’s campaign are Beth Myers, the campaign manager of Romney’s presidential run; Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s chief spokesman; Peter Flaherty, Romney’s “go-to-guy for conservatives”; and Rob Cole, Romney’s 2008 deputy chairman manager. Beth Lindstrom, another player in Romney World, is working as Brown’s campaign manager. Lindstrom’s ties to Romney go back years; she started working with him in the Massachusetts State House as director of consumer affairs.

A Brown victory would be a huge upset—threatening the viability of Obama’s health-care plan and providing the GOP a burst of energy and confidence heading into the 2010 midterm elections this fall. It would also be a big boost for Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. Up against a populist wave on the right that favors candidates like Sarah Palin, Romney can improve his appeal and influence by gaining the loyalty of newly elected officials. And Brown is hardly the only GOP contender Romney is helping. The Hill reported in September, Romney’s followers have spread throughout the country to help candidates in Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, and California. Most notable among them: Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman has a stable of Romney aides helping her try to her win the governor’s mansion in Sacramento.

Romney’s role is all the more interesting because he’s not exactly Brown’s ideological soulmate. One of the winning lines of the Brown campaign was his protestation that he can’t be tied to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. “I’m Scott Brown,” the state senator told the audience of the campaign’s only debate. “I’m from Wrentham. I drive a truck.”

Wrentham is best known for its shopping outlets. Romney, before recently decamping for New Hampshire, lived in Belmont, a tony Boston suburb, home to Harvard professors and families who send their kids to local private schools. Brown’s worked in state government since 1992; Romney made his name in private equity. Brown went to Boston College Law School, and Mitt Romney was schooled at Harvard Business School. They represent two different strands of American conservatism, or at least their New England versions.

But Romney intimates see similarities between the two.

“If you called central casting and said, ‘Give me the right candidate,’ you couldn’t get a better guy than Scott,” says Ron Kaufman, who is Massachusetts chairman of the Republican National Committee, an unofficial Brown adviser, and an adviser to Romney. Brown is married to a local newscaster and has one daughter at Syracuse; another is a former American Idol star and now plays Division I basketball at Boston College. Romney’s seemingly perfect profile—the looks, the clean-cut Mormon family—also elicited references to “central casting.”

“They are both happy warriors. They are both indefatigable. Both are kinds of policy wonks. Scott was very helpful to the governor with health care,” Kaufman says.

As Tuesday’s vote nears, Team Romney’s role in the Brown campaign is tumbling into the open. Talking to The Washington Post, strategist Eric Fehrnstrom trumpeted his campaign’s use of an ad featuring John F. Kennedy, Jr. and called the Coakley camp’s ensuing silence the turning point in the campaign.

“One thing it does say about Mitt is that his folks know how to run a campaign,” Kaufman says.

Democrats are not as psyched about the Romney crowd’s role in the Massachusetts special election; indeed, they’ve tried to make an issue of it. They point to his fingerprints on a negative ad about Coakley’s tax policy, paid for by an out-of-state group, the American Future Fund. The 30-second spot was produced by Larry McCarthy, who is famous for the “Willie Horton” ad. He too was a Romney hand in 2008.

“The Romney playbook is being used again,” says Boston-based Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh. She did not intend the comment as a compliment.

For Marsh, that playbook means a sharp turn to the right to attract support from national conservatives and what she calls “selective amnesia” about past legislative efforts or associates. Brown’s been hit by the Democrats for supporting an amendment which would have allowed hospital workers to refuse emergency conception to rape victims on account of religious beliefs. They’ve also pointed Brown’s effort to distance himself from out-of-state Tea Party groups.

Andrew Sullivan, for instance, wrote that he sees various contortions in Brown’s economic policies and found a “Romney-like cynicism” in a recent Boston Globe op-ed authored by the candidate.

The upside for Brown is that Romney’s team has a proven track record of success in statewide campaigns in the state. And that team has stayed remarkably cohesive through Romney’s post-gubernatorial career. That stands in marked contrast to the crackup John McCain’s aides went through following their losing 2008 campaign. And that, Romney supporters say, bodes well not only for Brown—but also for Romney’s White House chances in 2012.

“When you read the new book Game Change,” says the Republican strategist Kaufman, “the one thing that impresses you is how loyal the Obama folks were to their guy in a cycle where that was not the strong suit. The truth is the same with the Romney folks. They are dead loyal to their guy.”

Samuel P. Jacobs is a staff reporter at The Daily Beast. He has also written for The Boston Globe, The New York Observer, and The New Republic Online.

Things just keep getting uglier for Martha Coakley.  I think her only hope is if Obama can come to her rescue, but even still, I think the people are sending a strong signal, not just in Massachusetts but strait to The White House, that it’s time for real change.  At this point, Obama has no other choice, politically, than to campaign for Coakley.  He’s doomed if he does, and he’s doomed if he doesn’t.  I hope this endorsement gives Scott Brown a huge boost, or at least curbs the affects that a President Obama endorsement could have on Coakley’s prospects.

Here it is from Cape Cod Times:

Cap Cod Times Endorses Scott Brown over Martha Coakley

Impressed with his energy and with hopes for his independence, we support Scott Brown in the special election for U.S. Senate.

Although we do not agree with Brown’s position on health care reform, voters should consider the whole package when they go to the polls Tuesday.

And when we took a closer look at Brown and his platform, we liked what we saw.

Brown is an independent Republican who supports President Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan. He supports women’s right to choose, though he opposes partial-birth abortion and believes in strong parental notification laws.

On issues important to Cape Cod, he opposes the wind factory on Nantucket Sound, unlike Martha Coakley. If elected, he said he would work hard to bolster the tourism-based economy on Cape Cod and the Islands.

And unlike many conservative Republicans, he supports environmental protection and the permanent preservation of precious open spaces.

In order to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, Brown supports “reasonable and appropriate development of alternative energy,” such as wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal and improved hydroelectric facilities.

Brown also brings to the race a perspective that no other candidate can claim: As a lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard, he is uniquely aware of the importance and sacrifice of our men and women serving in the armed forces.

His military experience has informed his stance on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he appreciates President Obama’s thoughtfulness about American involvement in both countries.

We don’t agree with Brown on everything. For example, he opposes the national cap-and-trade program because he thinks it would impose higher costs on families and businesses. We believe a national program to reduce carbon emissions will not only reduce global warming but spur green energy technologies and create millions of high-tech jobs.

Although Brown opposes the current health care reform bill in Washington, he believes that all Americans deserve health care coverage. He supported the Massachusetts health care law that expanded coverage in 2006, and he believes individual states should follow suit.

There are many people who would like to make this race a referendum on the current health care debate, but the election is more than one issue, no matter how important that issue might be. This election is about representing the people of Massachusetts on all issues.

While we have common ground with Coakley on some points, we have our concerns about her ability to be effective in Washington based on her underwhelming campaign. With the luxury of being the front-runner since the first day of this race, Coakley has done little to demonstrate her passion for the office and commitment to the people. She squandered an opportunity to show vision but instead has run a campaign that seemed intended to run out the clock.

It is no surprise that Brown has been gaining momentum in a state, even though Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one. He has run an energetic campaign and has been outspoken on the issues. More importantly, however, we believe he is less likely of the two candidates to toe the party line. For example, in an editorial board meeting with the Cape Cod Times earlier this week, Brown was critical of President Bush and defended President Obama regarding the current financial crisis.

McClatchy News Service reports:

WASHINGTON — In a strongly worded message to Congress outlining its priorities for a military spending bill, the Obama administration today said it disapproved of including money for pensions for 26 elderly members of the World War II-era Alaska Territorial Guard.

The Guardsmen are among those assigned to protect Alaska from the Japanese during World War II.

The Army decided this year to no longer count service in the Guard in calculating the military’s 20-year minimum for retirement pay, although it still counts for military benefits. As a result, their pensions were decreased in January.

An estimated 300 members are still living from the original 6,600-member unit formed in 1942 to protect Alaska, then a territory, from attack. The 26 men have enough other military service to reach the 20-year minimum for retirement pay but would lose it if the Territorial Guard service doesn’t count.

A Senate military spending bill up for a vote in the Senate allows the former Guard members count their service as part of active military duty, and it reinstates the payments.

State lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year to fill the pay gap until Congress made a permanent fix, but the White House said Friday it didn’t think it was “appropriate to establish a precedent of treating service performed by a state employee as active duty for purposes of the computation of retired pay.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who along with Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, sponsored the fix, called the administration move “deeply disappointing, bordering on insensitive.” The legislation honors 26 elderly Native people who are the few remaining survivors of a military unit that served the country with valor, Murkowski said.

“The administration’s justification, which is that the legislation will set the precedent of treating service as a state employee as federal service, defies logic and history,” she said in a statement. “Sixty-two years after the Territorial Guard was disbanded, the Obama administration minimizes the contribution of this gallant unit to America’s success in World War II by calling its service ‘state service.’ “

We have been told that the President’s healtcare plan will not lead to rationing.  We have been told that he would never cut off the elderly’s medical benefits to save a few bucks.  “How could you even think that the President would ever do such a thing?” we have been asked.  Only Republicans would be so cold-hearted and cruel.  In fact, many supporters of the President, including his cheerleaders in the state run media,  have called those who have said that such things were possible under his healtcare plan are all “liars.”

And yet, Mr. Obama cuts off pension benefits to 26 WWII vets and denied the applications of 37 more WWII vets, to save a few bucks.  Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President.  Give us a reason to believe your claims that you would never ration healthcare and restore the pensions of these brave veterans who deserve far better than the treatment you have given them.

The Heritage Foundation reports that Congressional leaders, desperate to pass Mr. Obama’s Health Care plans, have come up with an idea on how to get it passed with the minimum of scrutiny and debate.  Don’t put it in writing before the vote.  Instead, they have put forward a “shell” of the legislation which is nothing more than a theoretical concept of what they want to do.  No details.  No actual legislation.  Just an outline.  And they want to attach it to an unrelated bill to get it through.

From the Heritage Foundation’s article:

STEP ONE: The Senate Finance Committee will finish work on the marking up of Senator Max Baucus’ (D-MT) conceptual framework for legislation by this Friday. Baucus has not unveiled final legislation and, according to the Associated Press, he added some new language to the mark up today. AP reports that “under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working class families.”

Senators have not been provided any real legislation and are offering amendments this week to Baucus’ 200+ page outline. It is expected that at the end of the process the Senate Finance Committee may produce a bill longer than the 1,000 page House bill that proved so controversial over the August recess. Many Senators are upset that they don’t have final language for a bill, yet still they sit in a Committee Hearing Room this week marking up a draft document that is not in the form of legislative language. The plan is to have this document voted out of the Senate Finance Committee by Friday.

STEP TWO: Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee.  This was the late Senator Kennedy’s (D-MA) bill, introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), which passed the HELP Committee on July 15, 2009 on a party line vote.  Remember, most Senators will still not know what they voted for in the Finance Committee.

STEP THREE: Senator Reid will then move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was the bill passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar. Reid will move to proceed, and he will need 60 votes to act on this bill.  After the motion is approved, he will then offer a complete substitute bill purportedly including the combined Senate HELP and Finance Committee products.  This means that the entire health care reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.

STEP FOUR: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 57 Democrats, 2 Independents (Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont), and a potential new member replacing the late Senator Kennedy. This scenario would most likely be implemented after the Massachusetts state legislature gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a new Senator and that Senator is seated by the Senate. According to CQ, the state legislature may pass a bill and present it to Governor Patrick by next week.

Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill, without changes, and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure thereby transforming within a few weeks 1/6th of the US economy. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House Leadership may consider using reconciliation to pass the legislation.

Click here for further details.

So, if you just loved the stimulus bill that was passed without members having read the bill, you will absolutely adore this Healthcare Bill that they want to pass before it even exists.  Keep it up Democrats, 2010 is coming and we are taking notice of your complete lack of respect for us, established law and the Constitution.  2010 could be 1994 times ten.

Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors warn today.

By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 10:00PM BST 02 Sep 2009

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients.”

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.

Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.

It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.

However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems.

Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance.

When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit.

If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention.

Dr Hargreaves said that this depended, however, on constant assessment of a patient’s condition.

He added that some patients were being “wrongly” put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die.

He said: “I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this “death pathway” that is coming in.

“It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.”

He added: “What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying.

“It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking.”

He said that he had personally taken patients off the pathway who went on to live for “significant” amounts of time and warned that many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition.

Prof Millard said that it was “worrying” that patients were being “terminally” sedated, using syringe drivers, which continually empty their contents into a patient over the course of 24 hours.

In 2007-08 16.5 per cent of deaths in Britain came about after continuous deep sedation, according to researchers at the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, twice as many as in Belgium and the Netherlands.

“If they are sedated it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better,” Prof Millard said.

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “Even the tiniest things that happen towards the end of a patient’s life can have a huge and lasting affect on patients and their families feelings about their care.

“Guidelines like the LCP can be very helpful but healthcare professionals always need to keep in mind the individual needs of patients.

“There is no one size fits all approach.”

A spokesman for Marie Curie said: “The letter highlights some complex issues related to care of the dying.

“The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient was developed in response to a societal need to transfer best practice of care of the dying from the hospice to other care settings.

“The LCP is not the answer to all the complex elements of this area of health care but we believe it is a step in the right direction.”

The pathway also includes advice on the spiritual care of the patient and their family both before and after the death.

It has also been used in 800 instances outside care homes, hospices and hospitals, including for people who have died in their own homes.

The letter has also been signed by Dr Anthony Cole, the chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr David Hill, an anaesthetist, Dowager Lady Salisbury, chairman of the Choose Life campaign and Dr Elizabeth Negus a lecturer in English at Barking University.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “People coming to the end of their lives should have a right to high quality, compassionate and dignified care.

“The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is an established and recommended tool that provides clinicians with an evidence-based framework to help delivery of high quality care for people at the end of their lives.

“Many people receive excellent care at the end of their lives. We are investing £286 million over the two years to 2011 to support implementation of the End of Life Care Strategy to help improve end of life care for all adults, regardless of where they live.”

Click here for direct link to source article.

Commence the posts about how this is all lies from a far-right, radical, bomb-throwing newspaper, doesn’t really happen anyway and even if it does, NHS is way better than the US system, so there!  (Insert rasberry sound here.)  Keep in mind, dear reader, that when its Anthropogenic Global Warming, we have to believe leading scientists.  I wonder if these leading scientists/doctors will be afforded the same reverence?  As the Brits themselves would put it:  “Not bloody likely.”

<script type=”text/javascript”><!–
google_ad_client = “pub-4706507631764317″;
/* 728×90, created 9/1/09 */
google_ad_slot = “1007508633″;
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 90;
//–>
</script>
<script type=”text/javascript”
src=”http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js”>
</script>

I just came across an article from the American Thinker that I just had to pass on.  It’s too long to post here so here is the link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/this_will_never_be_a_eurosocia.html

Europe was a breeding ground for Socialism and Communism because they have a long, long history of the people being subject to the government.  They were/are more accepting of having the government run their lives because that is the historical precedent for them.  Serfs served kings and queens.  Germans and Italians willingly subjected themselves to Hitler and Mussolini.  Eastern Europeans suffered under Communism for decades after WWII, which they ultimately rejected but many became comfortable with it.  It was just the way things were.

The United States was founded by people who rejected the notion of one man rule.  In it’s historical context and even today, The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution were/are radical documents.  The idea that man’s rights came from God and not man was a radical departure from most of the world’s concept of governance.  The founders stated that government’s role should be to make sure that we are free to exercise our God given rights.  This was, and still is in many cases, totally foreign to European tradition.

America was also founded on the concept of individualism.  Some say this is selfish.  This is not true.  The freedom to improve one’s self ultimately leads to that person becoming concerned not with self but with other people and their well-being.  If you can come to understand yourself you are better able to understand others.  With this understanding, instead of seeing only “what’s in it for me” you come to realize that others have needs as well. Understanding yourself makes you reach out to others in compassion because you know what they are going through.


Collectivism, on the other hand, says that its about helping the little guy but actually promotes greed and selfishness.  Leaders collect goods for themselves while telling everyone to sacrifice for the “common good.”  Soviet leaders had nice houses and never went without food or the nice things in life while their people waited in long lines for common items like toilet paper.  Soviet leaders had fancy cars while the average citizen, if they could afford it, would have to wait years to buy a poorly made Trabant.  European monarchies have/had a ruling class which lives entirely apart from the people they govern, surrounded by wealth and opulence.  Monarchies promote strict caste systems where upward mobility is determined by which family you were born to.  If you were born to a poor family, that was your lot in life.  Too bad.  This government enforced inequality creates a poverty mentality amongst the populace who, naturally go into survival mode.  In survival mode, you cannot think beyond your own needs thus fostering the traits of greed and selfishness.

The average person’s ability to better themselves is either severely limited or done away with entirely.  Without the hope of bettering their own condition, the average person will simply give up and look towards garnering what little he or she can for his or her self.  They become fatalistic.  “Whatever happens to me is beyond my control so I should just accept it.”  Fatalism is, from my own experiences in Chile, very much part of Hispanic culture. The expression “Si Dios quiere” (If God wills it) is an all too common expression.  For that reason, Spain and South America are also fertile grounds for Socialism and Communism.  In Arab countries, there is a similar phrase “Insha’Allah” or “God willing.”  Arab countries as well are fertile ground for collectivism albeit in the form of religious collectivism.

In the US, the American Dream says anyone can become anything they desire to be and this has attracted the masses from around the world for over 200 years.  And when someone comes to this country and makes of him or herself what they desire, legitimately, then the natural result of their success is a desire to extend that same chance to others.  That is the hope and change that we all want and have wanted since the founding of this country.  Not European Collectivism.  We have too long a tradition of being free to accept government control of our lives and the strong protests around the country against Obamacare, etc. are proof of that.  I agree and applaud the author of this article!  Well done and well said!

Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.

• Enact Medicare reform.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

John Mackey  online.wsj.com

The Massachusetts Model

Editorial

Massachusetts’s experiment in near universal health care coverage has become a favorite whipping boy for opponents of health care reform. They claim the program is a fiscal disaster and that the whole country will be plunged into a similar disaster if President Obama and Congress’s Democratic leaders have their way.

That is an egregious misreading of what is happening in Massachusetts. The state’s experience so far suggests that it is more than possible to insure almost all citizens and stay within planned budgets — although it will take great creativity and political will to hold down rising costs so that the program is sustainable.

Three years after the program began, 97 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance — by far the highest rate in the nation. That has been achieved without huge increases in state spending.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a non-partisan research group, recently concluded that the cost of achieving near universal coverage “has been relatively modest and well within early projections of how much the state would have to spend to implement reform.” That is heartening news given that the major features of the Massachusetts reforms are similar to those under consideration in Washington.

Massachusetts requires everyone to take out health insurance or pay a tax penalty (unless they are deemed unable to afford coverage). It requires employers to offer coverage or pay a modest fee. It has expanded Medicaid to cover more of the poor and provides subsidies to help other low- and moderate-income residents buy insurance. And it has established an exchange where people not covered at work can choose from policies offered by private insurers who compete for their business.

All told, this program has raised state and federal health care spending in Massachusetts from $1 billion a year in fiscal 2006 to a projected $1.7 billion for fiscal year 2010 — with the federal and state governments each paying half of the added costs, or about $350 million. Massachusetts’s overall budget for 2010 is $27 billion.

A remarkable and encouraging development is that employers, who faced only a modest penalty if they dropped or failed to provide coverage, have chosen instead to expand coverage, in part because their workers were clamoring for group coverage. Indeed, employers and their workers have made a greater contribution to expanding coverage than the state has.

When the Legislature recently imposed cuts that forced the program to reduce benefits for thousands of legal immigrants, critics were quick to charge that the program was unraveling. But as state tax revenues have dropped during the recession, virtually all state programs have had to accept cuts. The demand for subsidized care has also risen as people have lost jobs.

There have been growing pains and glitches. The initially generous insurance benefits had to be scaled back to keep costs manageable. Cigarette taxes had to be raised to help pay for the reform. The number of people reporting problems paying medical bills and gaining access to care, after falling sharply, has begun to rise again. Tens of thousands of people who make too much to qualify for subsidies have to be exempted from the mandate each year on the grounds that they cannot afford to buy insurance. People just above the exemption level who lack employer coverage often face what they consider very high premiums.

Such problems are a warning perhaps that subsidies need to be extended higher up the income range. Massachusetts gives subsidies to families of four earning $66,000 a year, while pending Congressional bills would provide subsidies for those earning up to $88,000. That could mean added strain on government budgets.

What Massachusetts has not yet figured out is how to slow the relentless rise in medical costs and private insurance premiums, although premiums within the exchange have been held to 5 percent annual increases. The state’s political leaders decided to expand coverage first, while postponing the hard decisions about cutting costs until lots of people, businesses and institutions had a stake in the success of the enterprise.

Now the state seems poised to tackle costs — with an approach that is far more ambitious than anything currently being contemplated on Capitol Hill.

A special commission has just recommended that the state try, within five years, to move its entire health care system away from reliance on fee-for-service medicine, in which doctors are paid more for each additional test or procedure they provide.

In its place, the commission wants a system in which groups of doctors and hospitals would receive fixed sums to deliver whatever care a patient needed over the course of a year. The hope is that doctors would be motivated to deliver only the most appropriate care, not needless and excessively costly care, with safeguards to ensure that they do not skimp on quality.

In Washington, as Congress and the administration look for ways to slow the rate of increase in health care costs, they are focusing on a range of possibilities and planning pilot projects to test them. That seems to be a more judicious approach given uncertainties as to what will work. Whatever Massachusetts chooses, Congress should keep a close eye. And the public should demand an honest assessment, from critics and supporters.

Related: EvangelicalsForMitt