Towards Closure and Resolution in Taser Death of Michael Jacobs Jr

By Eddie Griffin (BASG)

Saturday, August 29, 2009

CLOSURE

We now have closure in the Fort Worth Police Department’s taser death case of a 24-year old man, who had been diagnosed with mental illnesses. We have closure insofar as the Tarrant County Medical Examiner ruled the death of Michael Jacobs Jr. as a “homicide caused by the officer’s use of the Taser”. We have closure insofar as the officer admits administering two jolts of 50,000 volts to Jacobs’ body longer than the 5-second limitation. A 49-second jolt, followed by a 5-second jolt, caused a “sudden death during neuromuscular incapacitation due to application of a conducted energy device”, i.e. Taser.

Tarrant County ME Dr. Nizam Peerwani also ruled: “Repeat postmortem toxicology studies were negative for all drugs including psychomotor stimulant drugs and ethanol.” In other words, here was an innocent 24-year old African-American man with no drugs in his system at all. He was clean as a baby and healthy. And yet, in less than a minute, he is dead after being shocked with a taser.

A healthy man shocked to death in less than a minute says something of the lethality of the weapon used, i.e. Taser.

We now have closure in the cause of death: Homicide. But was it negligent homicide, by not taking the preliminary and necessary precautions as required?

Cpl. Stephanie A. Phillips claims that she “unknowingly kept the Taser trigger engaged for an unknown amount of time when she first applied the Taser, thus increasing the pre-programmed shock duration cycle of five seconds.” In other words, she over-road the pre-programmed limit for shock duration.

The objective of the Taser X26 is to incapacitate. A five second during may not be lethal. Beyond that, the Taser is obviously lethal, as proven by over 500 deaths since 2001. To override the non-lethal level of deployment, an officer runs the risk of summary punishment by electrical execution. An officer should not override the product safety guidelines. To “unknowingly” override the product safety limit, Officer Phillips went beyond the purpose of incapacitating the subject Michael Jacobs.

The officer was negligent in the deployment of lethal force. Tasers can kill.

I believe that Cpl. Phillips and the entire Fort Worth Police Department are not convinced of the lethality of Tasers. They are too quick and easy to use, and officers have a willy-nilly attitude about using them. It makes their job easier. But, by the same token, it endangers the public.

If there had been a single trace of drugs in Michael Jacobs’ body, the Medical Examiner would have ruled like other medical examiners. It has been easy to attribute the cause of taser deaths to drugs inside the subject’s system, but not in this case. It is not the victim’s fault that he died in less than a minute after being tased. It was the Taser that killed him, albeit the officer may have thought it less lethal.

RESOLUTION

I attended the funeral of Michael Jacobs Jr. and delivered a Resolution on behalf the thousands of the church and Internet community of readers and supporters. In the Resolution or Michael Jacobs Jr., I wrote:

We also know that Michael did not have to die like this because we have been warning police departments all across the United States for years that Tasers Kill. These devices send out a 50,000-volt charge. If one of us shocked ourselves on an electrical outlet at home, we would get jolted with only 120 volts, and all of us know how that feels. This was 50,000 volts, not 120 or 240. Even when the state of Texas executed men on death row by electric chair, “Old Sparky” could only generate 20,000 volts.

TASER International, Inc. insists that it is not the voltage but the amperage, yet we know so little about the body’s own neurological electrical system. Dr. Peerwani was specific in determining the cause of death: “neuromuscular incapacitation”. In other words, the electrical signals from the brain to the muscles in the body completely shut down, including the heart muscle.

It is a fact that people in highly agitated states should not be tasered. Maybe it is because the neurological activities in the brain are more susceptible to increasing the amperage of the electrical shock. Some survive. Some die. Everybody’s neurological system is different.

World Renowned Medical Examiner Ruled Taser Death: Homicide

UPDATE: The Michael Jacobs Case

Friday, August 28, 2009

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports reads: “Fort Worth Taser Death Ruled Homicide”.

FORT WORTH — The Tarrant County medical examiner ruled Thursday that the death of a mentally ill man in April who was shocked twice by a Taser stun gun wielded by a Fort Worth police officer was a homicide.

It was the fourth time that a person shocked by a Taser has died in Fort Worth police custody since the department started using the devices in 2001, according to the Police Department.

But the death of Michael Patrick Jacobs Jr., 24, is the first that Medical Examiner Nizam Peerwani has ruled to be a homicide.

From Eddie Griffin (BASG)
http://eddiegriffinbasg.blogspot.com/2009/05/taser-fight-in-fort-worth.html

In an interview with Fort Worth Weekly writer Peter Gorman, Tarrant County Medical Examiner Dr. Nizam Peerwani says, “It's still very difficult to determine the role a Taser charge may play in a death, but what we can learn from history is that there are people in certain excited states who perhaps should not be shocked.”

When asked if he about the maker of the taser device, the doctor noted the actions of TASER International had "a policy of suing medical examiners who find Tasers as having contributed to or caused a death".

“That can be very intimidating, of course,” he said. But, he added, it doesn't affect his decisions. “We are working on a case right now where the Taser was used, and we are looking at it very closely. And if we determine that the Taser was a contributing factor, we will be clear on that.”
(Ref: http://www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1463%3Adissecting-the-evidence&catid=30%3Acover-story&Itemid=375)


Who is Nizam Peerwani?

Dr. Nizam Peerwani is probably the highest-profile medical examiner in the United States. His territory covers four counties, but he's been called upon often to lend his expertise as far away as Afghanistan and Bosnia.

Peerwani has traveled a great deal for organizations such as Physicians for Human Rights, the United Nations, and Human Rights Watch, investigating claims of genocide and other abuses in far-flung corners of the globe - all pro bono.

Asked about his international work, Peerwani launched into a story about going to Rwanda in 1996, where his group had to be protected by Nigerian special forces under the banner of the U.N. while they searched for mass graves. "We found one that had 550 bodies in it. Our group only did one grave, but there were many more from that time."

Such work has taken him to killing fields in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Indonesia, El Salvador, Iraq, and Peru. He was called to Afghanistan in 2002, shortly after the United States sent in troops, to investigate what had happened to about 2,000 suspected Taliban and al Qaeda members who allegedly had surrendered to a local warlord and U.S. ally and then been killed. Their bodies had not been located, but human rights officials believed they'd been buried in mass graves in the desert. Peerwani and others with Physicians for Human Rights questioned local shepherds, found the bodies, and identified them as those of the men who had surrendered to the warlord.

There's another area of human rights work where Peerwani is a player in a much different way. Amnesty International and other groups around the world for years have complained about the abuses of Taser electric-shock weapons by police agencies - especially in the United States and in Texas in particular.

Questions have been raised about several cases in which people died after having been tasered - in most cases, repeatedly - by Fort Worth police. Those deaths, in part, led the police department to change some of its policies on Taser use a few years ago.

Some local attorneys question Peerwani's willingness to go along with Fort Worth police on cases involving deaths by Taser. And there's some controversy about Peerwani's work for the federal women's prison hospital at Carswell. Judges, attorneys, former inmates, and families of inmates who died at Carswell or at local hospitals are outraged about the poor quality of the prison's medical care, which evidence suggests has led to many deaths. And yet, because Peerwani's private company holds the contract to do Carswell autopsies, families of inmates can't get copies of his findings on the deaths of their loved ones.

Columnist Bob Ray Sanders writes:

Speaking of the April 18th tasing death of Jacobs, who was also diagnosed as bipolar and schizoid, Columnist Bob Ray Sanders writes: “While that seems like a long time, we do want the medical examiner’s office to get it right.” Sanders recommends that the Fort Worth Police Department issue a moratorium “on the use of Tasers until there is another thorough review of the department’s policies on the stun guns and until there can be more independent analyses of their effectiveness versus their danger. For the most part we’ve depended on the manufacturer’s analysis.”

WHAT NOW?

The taser death ruling as “a homicide”, coming from a world renowned Medical Examiner needs our attention. The Taser Death Case of Michael Jacobs Jr. will go before a Grand Jury.

Who will present the case?

District Attorney Joe Shannon said his office will review reports from police and Peerwani and present a case to a grand jury to determine what, if any, charge the officer might face. The grand jury likely will also hear testimony from witnesses.

Shannon emphasized that the homicide ruling does not necessarily mean that anyone will be charged with a crime.

“The word homicide does not mean crime,” he said. “It just means that the death involved another person.”

Charges involving death typically range from criminally negligent homicide to murder, but there are many other possibilities, Shannon said.

"There are probably 20 possibilities that could come out of this," Shannon said. "I don’t know if it will be any."

WHEN IS A HOMICIDE NOT A HOMICIDE?

Answer: When it is done with impunity and without consequences.

Someone must be held responsible for the death of an innocent man by lethal application of an officer’s weapon. Who is responsible for the death of the innocent, mentally ill Michael Jacobs?

Previously, Fort Worth Police Chief Jeff Halstead supported the officer’s use of force, as being consistent with department policies.

If policies for taser deployment were followed, as claimed, and it resulted in “homicide”, have we legalized “homicide” in the hands of the police?

And, what of these “20 possibilities” of homicide, are they saying there is an invention called “accidental homicide” defense?

Clearly, the district attorney has no heart for this… as does no one else in the community. But the facts must be laid bare, and the chips fall where they may. Let Justice reign instead.

If the Fort Worth Police Department still supports the policy and officer in question, then their only defense would be that they were “duped” by TASER International’s sales pitch of non-lethality.

RESPONSE FROM TASER INTERNATIONAL

“Taser International is always concerned when a death tragically occurs in police custody. While we have not been provided a copy of the medical examiner’s report, we continue to stand by the safety of our Taser technology,” said Steve Tuttle, Taser International’s vice president of communications.

Someone Must Take Responsibility for an Innocent Man’s Death

The Jacobs Family has endured emotional trauma and financial hardship since the death of their son. Four months of waiting for a ruling is too long for settling an insurance death claim, out of which comes funeral expenses and debt. And, only lately, as an after thought, the family gets condolences from the Chief of Police.

Who will pay the death damages? How much is Michael Jacobs’s life worth to the City of Fort Worth? Is the police department liable for wrongful death?

President Obama will not sign a Health Care Reform Bill, unless…

AS OF THIS WRITING, there are several versions of HR 3200 and no agreement within Congress as to which bill to use for a mark up.

President Obama will not sign a Health Care Reform Bill, unless...

The Bill accomplishes three goals:

1. To lower the cost of health care for the customer;
2. Make sure those Americans who are currently happy with their health care coverage can keep it; and
3. Provide coverage for all those who are currently uninsured, whether because of pre-existing conditions or because they simply cannot afford it.

NOW WHICH OF THESE OBJECTIVES DO YOU OBJECT TO?

Eddie Griffin
evansavenue76104@yahoo.com
www.eddiegriffinbasg.blogspot.com

OVERALL OBJECTIVE: Fix what is broken. As a precondition to fixing the problem, government should not come between doctor and patient. A patient should have a full right to choose.

What are the Options of Choice?

OPTION ONE: The existing health care system, as is. Those who are happy with the current system, the option to keep the health care coverage is protected by provisions in Sec. 102 of the Affordable Health Choices Act

OPTION TWO: An alternative option under which the Uninsured can have Affordable Health coverage.

Currently, the Uninsured neglect needed medical services until health issues become a crisis. It is then they seek healthcare in the emergency room (ER Care). This charity healthcare comes at the expense of our county.

Early treatment could prevent the latter cost. In fact, a combination of preventative care, early diagnosis, and early treatment could very well help an expectant single mother access prenatal care, as opposed to an abortion for a medically neglected fetus. HOWEVER, this bill should fund, in any way, abortions.

The infant mortality rate among African-Americans in Tarrant County is over 17.0 per 1000. This is comparable to a Third World country.

The problem here is inaccessibility to healthcare and a lack of public information. It is now a cumbersome process to become Medicare/Medicaid qualified, plus the inability of most poor being able to pay the co-pay (sharing obligations). Single mothers in their teens to twenties fall through the gap, between Medicare, Medicaid, and charity care.

Of this group are the unemployed, underemployed, marginally employed, and temps. These “at will” workers are also “at risk” workers. For example: The immigrant employee who servers a finger in an OJT accident. As a small business with no employee healthcare coverage, he pays the doctor bill only, and sends the worker back to work, as if it is the worker’s fault.

Should there be a reduction in tort liability for medical malpractice?

In the above case scenario, whose responsibility is it to provide healthcare coverage? Who is responsible for covering accidents on industrial property? There must be equity and fairness in the treatment of employees, as it relates to company healthcare liabilities. An employer should not be self-insured, unless they have sufficient capital reserves in store or provide a covetable (affordable) COBRA program. [COBRA provides continuity in existing employment healthcare insurance programs]

As for doctors who pay high medical liability insurance cost, this is the CURRENT SITUATION, and not necessarily the future situation. For sure, health insurance premiums are going to go up and up, with or without Tort Reform. It is simply the escalating cost of doing business, with provisions for profits.

Despite the rising business and personal health insurance rates, the insurance companies have profited beyond reason. Just look at the property holdings of insurance companies as proof of what becomes of “excessive” profits. They buy buildings and businesses. In the meantime, the customer gets no reduction in rates.

If nothing changes, this is the scenario with which we will continually live.

The insurance companies must be forced to reduce its profit rate at the expense of customers desperately in need of health care coverage. The American people should not be held hostage to the insurance companies and its system of arbitrary coverage and denial of service without notice to the terminally ill.

Under the current employment-based healthcare plans, most employees are satisfied, despite their level of payroll deduction. Under these plans, people are satisfied with their coverage and their family doctors. But some employment-based healthcare plans may not option to become Qualified Health Benefit Plans (QHBP). Self-insurance should not become an option.

And, what of those employers who opt for the government QHBP Exchange option, WOULD THIS FORCE EMPLOYERS TO DROP THEIR CURRENT EMPLOYEE-BASED HEALTHCARE PLAN AND BUY INTO GOVERNMENT INSURANCE? WILL THIS DESTROY THE PATIENT-DOCTOR RELATIONSHIP?

We should phase out frontier medicine, where doctors are woefully behind the times in medical record keeping, technology, and knowledge. Although some patients may love their frontier family doctor, that a family may have had for over 100 years, at some point medical records will outlive doctors, and these patient records should be accessible through a centralize medical database system to insure continuity of health care.

FINANCING by Upside Down Tax

Those of the upper income bracket should be able to pay a little more in order to insure more people. We should, therefore, start taxing at the richest of the rich, and work our way down.

There is already a bottom-to-top tax financing system, through worker payroll deduction.

FICA Taxes
The Federal Insurance Contributions tax consists of both Social Security and Medicare taxes. Social Security and Medicare taxes are paid both by the employees and the employer. Both parties pay half of these taxes. Employees pay half, and employers pay the other half. Together both halves of the FICA taxes add up to 15.3%

. The 15.3% FICA tax is broken down as follows:
• Social Security (Employee pays 6.2%)
• Social Security (Employer pays 6.2%)
• Medicare (Employee pays 1.45%)
• Medicare (Employer pays 1.45%)

FICA CAP LEVELS

FICA CAP for 2000 was $76,200.00
FICA CAP for 2001 was $80,400.00
FICA CAP for 2002 was $84,900.00
FICA CAP for 2003 was $87,000.00
FICA CAP for 2004 was $87,900.00
FICA CAP for 2005 was $90,000.00
FICA CAP for 2006 was $94,200.00
FICA CAP for 2007 was $97,500.00
FICA CAP for 2008 is $102,000.00

FICA CAP for 2009- [An Upward adjustment here would be viewed as a tax hike on the middle class]

Start at the Billionaire level.


BEYOND

COBRA premium assistance credit. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) provides certain former employees, retirees, spouses, former spouses, and dependent children the right to temporary continuation of health coverage at group rates. COBRA generally covers multiemployer health plans and health plans maintained by private-sector employers (other than churches) with 20 or more full and part-time employees. Parallel requirements apply to these plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Under the Public Health Service Act, COBRA requirements apply also to health plans covering state or local government employees. Similar requirements apply under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and under some state laws. For the premium assistance (or subsidy) discussed below, these requirements are all referred to as COBRA requirements.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) allows a credit against “payroll taxes” (referred to in this publication as “employment taxes”) for providing COBRA premium assistance to assistance eligible individuals. For periods of COBRA continuation coverage beginning after February 16, 2009, a group health plan must treat an assistance eligible individual as having paid the required COBRA continuation coverage premium if the individual elects COBRA coverage and pays 35% of the amount of the premium.

An assistance eligible individual is a qualified beneficiary of an employer's group health plan who is eligible for COBRA continuation coverage during the period beginning September 1, 2008, and ending December 31, 2009, due to the involuntarily termination from employment of a covered employee during the period and elects continuation COBRA coverage. The assistance for the coverage can last up to 9 months.

The 65% of the premium not paid by the assistance eligible individuals is reimbursed to the employer maintaining the group health plan. The reimbursement is made through a credit against the employer's employment tax liabilities.

The Security You Get from health insurance reform

Health Insurance Consumer Protections

View more documents from White House.

Burgess Meeting with President on Affordable Health Choices

U. S. Representative Michael C. Burgess
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
1224 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
P: (202) 225-7772
F: (202) 225-2919

RE: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act & Meeting with the President

Dear Congressman Michael C. Burgess:

I recently read of your acceptance to meet with President Barack Obama about your concerns related to the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200). Please convey our well-wishes to the President and First Family.

If never we have agreed on anything, we have agreed on this:

FIRST: As far as medicine is concerned, Americans are ready for change.

You state: “The U.S. Congress must: (1) enact laws that provide a safety net for the poorest of the poor; (2) take less taxpayer dollars so they can be used to pay for the cost of a family's health coverage; and (3) provide new incentives for families and individuals to save for their health expenses… As the cost of medical care continues to increase, businesses are more and more reluctant to provide coverage for their employees.

Without national legislation, health costs will continue to climb, health insurance premiums will become more burdensome for employers and employees.

If ever so slowly, I believe we are moving toward a system where basic health care will be accessible to all, while retaining the option for individuals to access unlimited care – a modified version of the mixed public and private healthcare system we have now.

I would like to bring all parties to the table and send a bill to the President that addresses this issue.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

Congressman Michael C. Burgess represents Texas 26th District, a gerrymandered district where once our voices were heard, but are no longer heard.

Our congressman has a misperception of healthcare as a right or a privilege. If healthcare means extending the right to live, it is a constitutional right, insofar as we have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

The misperception comes in when the Congressman looks upon healthcare as a privilege. He states: “It is market-based healthcare that is and will be essential to maintaining the world-class ‘premium’ medicine that people travel across the globe in search of.” This premium medicine that people travel across the globe to receive in the United States consists of (1) screening for preventable diseases, (2) advanced technology like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computerized tomography (CT), and (3) heroic late-stage treatment measures.

This so-called culture of ‘premium’ medicine is based upon the book “Crisis of Abundance” by Dr. Arnold Kling.

MR. PRESIDENT:

I have assured my congressman that the “poorest of the poor”, for which he assumes to speaks, do not suffer from the “crisis of abundance”, and neither spoiled by “culture of ‘premium’ medicine.”

Remember, we are the Uninsured. We take what we can get. And, most of the time, it is charity care, at the expense of the County Hospital.

Congressman Burgess, to date, has held only two one-hour Town Hall meetings. On Saturday, August 8, he visited Denton, from 10 am to 11 am, and from 2:00 pm to 3 pm, he visited Gainesville.

These are communities of people who are already has health insurance. These are the ones with the “premium” healthcare expectations.

Since Sec. 102 of the Affordable Health Choices Act. Protects the choice to keep current coverage:

[Sec. 102(1)(B)(2) prohibits private insurers from changing terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing on or after the First Day of Y1. Therefore, it would be illegal for private insurers to raise the rates on old policies]

[Sec. 102(1)(B) (3) specifically states:

The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.]

CITIZEN’S ALERT: Speak- Don’t Shout

By Eddie Griffin

Friday, August 07, 2009

I am as interested as anyone in the Healthcare Reform bill, but I cannot get any answers because too many people are shouting. Let us hear the issue. Then let us speak our minds.



We want to be heard also, not drowned out by mindless, disrespectful chanting. What I have seen so far of this Recess Rally is a lot of shouting, and no clear answers. No one is allowed to speak. There is an atmosphere of intimidation, apprehension, and fear. This is not good for America. After all, there are two sides to the issue: Those who have access to healthcare and those who do not.

There are those who have health insurance already, and access to doctors and the best medical care. There are those who do not. These are the ones who show up in the emergency rooms of hospitals every day, about ready to die, with no health coverage.

Why should those who have shout out those who have not?

Those who attend these public forums are the ones who already have health coverage. But they have been misled to believe that allowing coverage for the uninsured poor is going to destroy them. Is it wrong to advocate for the uninsured poor?

The bill clearly states that a person can keep what they have. If they have insurance coverage they are pleased with, they can keep it. If they have a doctor they are pleased with, then they can keep their family and personal physicians. These luxuries and privileges are not afforded to all Americans.

People must be sensitive to both sides.

What the Obama administration recognizes is the cost of healthcare is tied up with health insurance costs. If anyone has noticed, insurance costs keep going up, and premiums keep rising, and will continue to rise if not checked.

The federal health insurance option offers a competitive rate insurance plan, for those who subscribe. The plan would offer more affordable coverage, which will reduce the cost of small business owners who provides medical coverage (in part or in whole) to their employees. For those who lose their jobs in this economic downturn, the government insurance program may be a better and cheaper option than post-employment COLA coverage.

There is the marginally employed, whose employer provide them with no health coverage. They are unable themselves to earn enough to pay for a health insurance in the current market. Maybe a government insurance policy would be affordable for them. Although it may be the Cadillac plan people are now so afraid of losing. Any healthcare is good healthcare for those who have been medically neglected.

If the insurance of the rich covers cosmetic surgery and the poor does not have the option, this is not a matter of disparity. It is a matter of choice.

Subtitle B-Public Health Insurance Option, Sec. 221(a): For years beginning with Y1, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide for the offering of an “Public Health Insurance Option” that insures (1) choice; (2) competition; and (3) stability of affordable, high quality coverage throughout the United States.

Now what is wrong with this plan? And where, in the bill, is it falling short?

http://eddiegriffinbasg.blogspot.com/

We Agree & Disagree on Health Reform

U. S. Representative Michael C. Burgess
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
1224 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
P: (202) 225-7772
F: (202) 225-2919

RE: Health Reform Bill


My Dear Congressman:

You stated: “I voted no on this legislation, but I will admit that there are parts of this bill that are good, such as the increased steps to tackle the problems of waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. I am pleased that several of my bipartisan amendments that make needed improvements to the bill were accepted. But, despite Republican attempts to improve the bill, many parts are still missing, such as medical liability reform.

Thank you for stating your position, openly and honestly. I agree with you, in part, and differ in other parts. Maybe this would be a good starting point for consensus between you and my community.

We agree: Americans want quality health care that is affordable. I also concur that some Americans want to be able to keep their current health insurance and doctor. But the assertion, “this bill takes those decisions out of their hands and into the hands of the government,” I beg to differ, after going over the bill.

All health insurance policies in effect prior to Year (Y1) will remain in effect and continuous for as long as the policyholder wishes, or until the insurance company drops coverage. However, a government insurance alternative, created to force down the cost of healthcare coverage, may be turn out to be a cheaper and better option than their current policy with annual escalating costs.

Your formula for cutting health insurance cost by medical liability reform may be a good idea. But I believe medical liability claims should be judged and awarded by juries, and the medical industry must come to grips with the severity of people's judgment in tort cases. (Here again, this is just my option, and has nothing to do with the current legislation).

You also wrote: With this bill, the Democrats will drastically expand the federal government’s involvement in health care by adding millions more to the rolls of Medicaid.

Are there people currently not receiving healthcare treatment, simply because they cannot get on the Medicaid rolls? How about my daughter-in-law and the millions like her, medically neglected every day? So, what’s wrong with adding millions more to the Medicaid rolls. Raising the cap of Medicare payroll deduction from $87,000 to wage and salary earning up to $1 million. That would insure Medicare/Medicaid solvency and allow more medically neglected individuals to be added to the rolls.

You also claim that this bill creates a new government entitlement – the government-run health insurance option. The health insurance industry has held the American public hostage from the beginning. Every year, the insurance companies raise our rates, and there is nothing we can do about it. There is no truly competitive alternative. This bill gives the public an out.

If this is an “entitlement” by your definition, then the American public is certainly entitled to it.

Finally, you claim that this bill will strap billions of dollars in new taxes and penalties on the backs of hard-working Americans and small businesses. They will replace choice and freedom with new federal mandates.

We have heard from the small business community. If they can keep insurance cost down, they can invest more in their businesses and provide health coverage for their employees. This is not currently possible with annual insurance rate increases. However, a competitively priced government insurance program would afford them a more economical alternative to private insurers.

As a medical doctor, you are probably looking at the proposed oversight task force as intrusive upon your private practice. But you must realize that the public needs protection from being subjected to unnecessary medical procedures for practitioners’ profits. (And, you have to look no further than the case of Michael Jackson to find proof.)

We both hope that the American people will make their voices heard and demand that Congress pass real health care reform that will fix what is wrong and build on what works.

Looking at the investment on the preventative (or wellness) side of the bill, we might wisely speculate that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” This is another way of saying that there is real cost saving in preventative care.

How much? We cannot say. You are the doctor. Tell us how much prevention can save on medical cost down the road.

Therefore, this notion of more government spending, more federal debt, higher taxes, and more government control over their everyday lives is more hysteria and paranoia than facts.

Sincerely
Eddie Griffin