RE: Healthcare Reform

August 14, 2009

Why would we move into the reform being proposed in the House when it completely

screws up an already limping system. These people are not interested in reform,

but control. They have not attacked any of the things that are driving

healthcare costs out of control. Also the framers of the constitution never

intended to promote the general welfare by conferring additional " rights " .

Brad Thorne, P.T.

Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle

Subject: Re: Healthcare Reform

To: PTManager

Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:19 PM

Dick,

The US Constitution, in it's preamble, states " We the People....in order to

form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,

provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare,... " and Article 1,

Section 8: " The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties,

imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and

general welfare of the United States... "

So I would propose that in order to promote the general welfare of it's

citizens, one might stretch to the conclusion that providing health care

services to all it's citizens just might promote their general welfare. And in

order to from a more perfect health care system, that periodic reform might be

necessary. And the Constitution provides for our government the ability to levy

taxes to pay for such benefits.

Both sides of this debate will continue to exert their beliefs, and

unfortunately few will be persuaded to change their stance. Will we ever see

meaningful Health Care Reform? Or will we recreate the inequities that previous

abbreviated attempts have delivered? How many posts have been made to this

listserve over the past few years complaining about therapy caps, coding

inequities, denials of service, patients failing to show when their insurance

runs out, etc? Would anyone disagree that our current Health Care System is less

than perfect? Why can't we as a nation focus on trying to form that perfect

health care system, that would adress the general welfare of it's citizens?

Debate yes, but work constructively to evolve our current dysfunctional system

into a better one.

Not sure if our founding fathers put them in order of priority or not, but in

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the bullet point about

" general welfare " is first while " establish post offices " is seventh. Defining

general welfare is left more up to interpretation than post offices though. go

figure.

W. , PT, MS

Grosse Pointe Woods, MI

PTA Program Chair, Baker College of Park

Therapeutics

Chair, Michigan Board of Physical Therapy

david.perry@ baker.edu

" And in the end it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in

your years. "

Abraham Lincoln

" A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new. "

Albert Einstein

____________ _________ _________ __

From: Dick Hillyer <RHillyerComcast (DOT) net>

To: PTManager@yahoogrou ps.com

Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:25:08 PM

Subject: RE: Healthcare Reform

Rick et al -

In Europe, royalty and Parliaments ruled, asserting that only they could

confer rights -- which they could also withdraw if they could get more votes

or property doing so. Elite oligarchies or families could dictate what was

done with one's resources, possessions, flocks, or even children. That was

not tolerable to hearts yearning for liberty. Our nation was founded to be

different from those others.

Returning to basics, our Founders established a Constitution which

recognized that a strong central government easily becomes a tryanny. Power

is just too tempting, as we have well seen. Every culture in history which

has concentrated massive central power in the hands of a few has declined,

whereas our intentional non-European experiment, enhancing the liberties of

the individual citizens, flourished. We need to preserve our liberties from

further devolving into the hands of elitists and " statists " .

Please understand that I am not speaking for or against either the

Republicans or Democrats, but about Freedom; neither right nor left, but

liberty. I'm speaking on behalf of free men and free women, who exercise

liberty in making their own decisions about issues in their own operating

environment.

The Declaration of Independence (which was written before either the

Articles of Confederation or the Constitution) says: " We hold these truths

to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by

their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,

Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights,

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the

consent of the governed... "

Let's review that again: Governments are instituted to secure the God-given

rights of mankind which were recognized before the discovery of America. To

*secure the rights of the individuals* . So, I have to ask, What is a

primary job of government, other than to assure that the citizens get to

exercise their liberties?

Please don't get me wrong. A lot of people need a better healthcare

insurance plan; Charitable acts are good and noble; Being humanitarian is

a good thing. But disproportionately taking resources from one class of

citizens to provide goods or services for another group or class is not a

legitimate role of our government.

Healthcare is not the job of government: Defending the shores is.

Delivering the mail is (maybe.) and Expanding peoples liberties, staying out

of their business is the job of government. Some of the public discourse

reminds me of a manipulative addicted patient who talks and talks and talks

but never complies with their rehab program. They continuously create

crisis after crisis, diversion after diversion, and then get upset when

their therapist gets back to measuring degrees of ROM, repetitions of

difficult exercises, and distance walked.

This therapist is looking back at the original documents, bypassing the

clamor, and asking:

" 1) Defending the borders, 2) delivering the mail, and 3) ensuring our

individual liberties: How's that working for you? "

Respectfully,

Dick Hillyer, DPT

W. Hillyer,PT,DPT, MBA,MSM

Lee Therapist Group, LLC

Hillyer Consulting

Cape Coral, FL 33914

_____

From: PTManager@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:PTManager@ yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf

Of s

Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:09 PM

To: PTManager@yahoogrou ps.com

Subject: Healthcare Reform

Hello all, hope this finds you well,

I wanted to share a link to an interview with Wendell Potter, former

vice-president of Cigna. I urge all of you with an interest in the outcome

of the current healthcare debate to take the time to watch this interview

and to then forward it to your patients, friends and families. It is far

time that we rescue health care from the grips of the insurance industry. I

am very interested to hear your opinions on this piece. Thank you.

http://www.pbs. <http://www.pbs. org/moyers/ journal/07312009 /watch.html>

org/moyers/journal/ 07312009/ watch.html

Sincerely,

E. s, PT, DPT

Orthopedic Clinical Specialist

Fellow American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists

www.douglasspt. com

August 14, 2009

Mr. ,

The general welfare clause (and the interstate commerce clause as well, but

that's for another day's conversation) have certainly been used to rationalize

much mischief.

It was clearly understood at our founding that promoting the general welfare was

accomplished first and most importantly by protecting natural rights, and that

the most effective destroyer of those rights would always be government. Any

sane analysis of constitutional priorities then ought to prevent any effort by

the federal government to promote welfare that also interferes with natural

rights. Rights ALWAYS come first. And besides, even if one feels comfortable

turning the constitution upside down (no one should though many do) it is

difficult to rationalize altruistic motives behind these government public

welfare programs when so many gain so handsomely from them while others suffer

so under them. Bottom line: There is nothing reasonable or good to be found in

“stretching” constitutional principles.

There is probably no better proof of the dangers of rationalizing away natural

rights than the federal government's turning control of our money supply over to

private individuals—an incredible plan that has destroyed our financial

stability and made us a debtor nation of a proportion difficult to quantify and

with a nearly valueless currency behind that debt. (Nobody has been able to

properly calculate the number of future generations forced now to dedicate their

lives to paying our current debt, and we are quite unbelievably causing that

debt to grow still higher!) Nevertheless I would venture a guess that

government-sponsored and government-enforced medical care is a close second in

negative effects. Its long litany of negatives has been amply reported here and

elsewhere—a very short list includes forced utilization and forced

non-utilization, raging medical inflation, a frightening number of medical

care-induced illnesses, a reluctance on the part of medical providers to face

the realities of our society's worsening health, and (a related fact) providers'

recalcitrant attitude about holding on to their lucrative detection and

treatment programs rather than pursuing actual health promotion and disease

prevention.

With that in mind, look at our constitution, and in there find the federal

government's authority to prevent you and I, natural men and citizens of this

republic, by the threat of violence (or actual violence) from even opting out of

the mess.

Dave Milano, PT, Rehabilitation Director

Laurel Health System

________________________________________

From: PTManager [PTManager ] On Behalf Of DAVID

PERRY [dperrypt@...]

Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:19 PM