Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Tyranny's first step: gun confiscation


Tyranny’s first step: gun confiscation

 

After the horrific tragedy in Newtown Connecticut, cries for more curbs on private gun ownership were splashed across the media. President Obama seized the moment appointing a gun control advisory panel headed by the Vice President. The President’s superficial aim is to reduce gun violence, yet his greater goal is to remove as many guns as he can from the general population. A contingent of left leaning politicians, their media counterparts and the White House have decided that registering a weapon is not enough. Taking weapons from the good-guys is their answer to the wave of violence confronting the nation. George Mason, the great patriot, said:  “to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” After each horrific massacre the government has attempted to tweak the rights of legitimate gun owners ever so slightly. Ultimately, Mason’s vision of a society without guns comes to fruition as the bureaucracy dissects the very laws that allow their ownership. Most recent guestimates of private ownership of handguns, assault rifles and other armaments exceeds two hundred million. Andrew Cuomo, the liberal Governor of New York, will attempt to legitimatize gun confiscation through a permit process. Speculated legislation would make criteria for ownership so difficult that only a very small sub-segment of the state’s population would qualify. Cuomo’s remarks came on the heels of media elites such as Ed Schultz calling for confiscation of weapons from “all” law abiding citizens. People will not give up their weapons without a level of civil unrest that would be difficult to quantify at this time. Opposing weapon confiscation is a plethora of organizations with the National Rifle Association in the forefront. Their stance is firm and well known. Government entities, whether state or federal, will find a tidal wave of opposition imposed on them through the judicial process from these groups. In the event courts take the liberal perspective, the suggested civil unrest could become a reality. The irony is many members of government have concealed weapon permits along with those in the media who have attested to their own possession of various weapons. There are many reasons for extreme violent acts with guns and there are even more reasons why psychotics should not have access to them. Government’s goal should be to keep weapons out of the hands of the Adam Lanza’s of the World, not law-abiding citizens. The next move is the government’s, let us hope it is the “right” one. Mark Davis MD., President of Healthnets Review Services, www.healtnetsreviewservices.com.

Monday, December 17, 2012

Hell comes to Newtown Connecticut


Hell comes to Newton Connecticut

 

In a peaceful community 60 miles from New York City hell opened up its doors on Friday December 14, 2012. Approximately 9:40 am Adam Lanza forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut and discharged several weapons killing 26 people, twenty of whom were children. Earlier that day Lanza killed his mother in her home with multiple shots to the head. Those who visited the school crime scene in its aftermath could not put words to the carnage they viewed. As more information emerged the irrationality that sparked this tragedy began to take form. Interviews with Adam’s relatives described a picture of a troubled youth who may have been on psychiatric drugs. A much larger question bandied about in the media was Adam Lanza’s reason for the massacre at this specific school. Adam’s psychosis may have been fed by the endless violence embedded in his video games or Hollywood’s murder a minute films. Similar to so many other mass killings by young males the reasons for their actions are never fully elucidated.

 

Media outlets took turns politicizing this tragedy calling for more gun control legislation. A few national cable concerns consistently plastered Adam Lanza’s picture across our screens making him a martyr to those on the fringe of society, instead of portraying him as the psychotic he was. Professional apologists with doctoral degrees jumped into the fray discussing certain quirky personality disorders that could have led this psychotic to perform these heinous acts of violence. The few facts known about Adam’s background to date are his mother, Nancy Lanza, was divorced in 2008 leaving her with an excellent financial settlement to finish raising her son. Early news releases noted Nancy Lanza had previously worked at the massacre site, now the reverse is being stated. She had a fixation with guns, which allowed Adam to obtain his weapons easily. An older brother discussed Adam’s psychological profile in a generalized sense mentioning the word autism in passing. Whether he had a developmental disorder or a mental affliction acquired in early life remains the subject of debate. Words attached to Adam Lanza run the gamut from introverted and withdrawn to troubled and psychologically imbalanced. Adam is a reflection of many emotionally troubled people who live on the sidelines of life until the last thread of reality finally leaves their minds.  Unfortunately, he was not satisfied to die alone. Today the nation is grieving for the little ones who will never reach their full potential. Only God knows what tomorrow will bring. Mark Davis, MD

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Conservative media: a Liberal's best friend

Conservative media: a Liberal's best friend

Conservative media: a Liberal's best friend


Conservative media: the Liberals best friend

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levine and others who carry the flag of conservative media may have inadvertently helped the President regain the White House. Incessantly hammering the President on every issue, from the indecent to the superficial, may have had paradoxical effects not realized by the craftsmen behind their microphones. Fox network, under the auspices of Sean Hannity and others, repeatedly re-aired commercials that the Democrats concocted and aired in selective markets in their effort to present certain perspectives. Fox’s audience reach is exponentially greater than the original target markets for these very negative presentations against Republicans. Hence, without paying one dime, the Democrats found their message reaching millions of homes not the smaller audience to which they were originally released. Conservative media believes the majority of those who tune in are conservative, that may not be the case. Day after day and night after night the cadre of conservative minds pounced on Big Bird, birth control, Planned Parenthood, immigration and more which alienated many to favor the Democrat cause. The conservative script was the same no matter where you tuned in. Big Bird’s show produced partially with public funds was an infinitesimally small issue that Romney should have never exposed. Planned Parenthood, an association that helps millions of women with gynecological issues that extend far beyond abortion, was the subject of intense scrutiny by the right. The idiocy to lambaste such an organization is beyond the scope of words that I can present here. Birth control was made a cause celebre by Rush and others inadvertently providing more fuel for which the libs could use against the opposing party. On immigration, several decades have gone by without resolving this important issue. Obama’s backdoor Executive Order allowing illegals to stay under certain conditions resonated well with the Hispanic community. Romney was checkmated on this issue months before he became the candidate of choice. The Republicans had no counter offer, but railed against immigration anyway with the media following suit. Foreign policy and the economy took a backseat to these less important campaign issues. Obamacare’s true detrimental effects on medical services were never properly presented by a media that does not understand its true nature. Romney avoided many discussions on the fine points of Obamacare because it mimicked his own legislation which he inflicted on the Bay State. Conservative media, knowingly or not, helped in Obama’s reelection. Do they stand to gain financially from an Obama second term?  Rush, Levine and others who push the conservative word will benefit handsomely by Romney’s election loss. The President’s penchant to generate a new controversy daily is good for business because it increases audience participation. A larger audience brings in more advertising revenue. America lost on Election Day, yet paradoxically conservative media won. Mark Davis, MD. www.healthnetsreviewservices.com

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Fiscal cliff meets fiscal irrationality


Fiscal cliff meets fiscal irrationality

 

 

President Obama is requesting 1.6 trillion dollars in new tax revenues over the next ten years along with elevating the debt ceiling towards heaven. Startling as his requests may sound he has offered minimal spending cuts as a rational means to stabilize the economy. Succinctly, the President is telling the private sector to give up more so he can lavish the takers with further entitlements. A stealth attack on private assets is under consideration to finance an expansive redistribution of wealth. Media from both perspectives has been humming with potential plans to nationalize retirement accounts, limit across the board tax deductions, tax businesses on gross revenues not net and other devious means to maximize revenue collection. To embed the enormity of this manufactured crisis into the minds of Americans, a new set of key words has been invented for this purpose. Fiscal cliff, a term that is loosely defined as the economic detriment that would befall most of us in the event certain laws are not amended in the immediate future has come into being. The resulting tax increases and spending cuts that would follow could affect every level of the economy. Economists and those in the know explain that over spending tilts the economy towards the precipice that has become the talk of the media and Congress. President Obama and the Democrats believe that high levels of revenue enhancements to certain sectors of the economy will buy America life-support from the fiscal oblivion for which they are partially responsible. From TARP to the ill-fated Stimulus debacle, the economy swirled for a few seconds while the money was being dished out. The latter programs caused a hiccup in the financial markets never denting the true problem, too much government and over-spending. Similar to all ill-conceived legislation the Stimulus never stimulated anything. There is definitely climate change, yet it has nothing to do with the weather. America has been mismanaged into the economic doldrums with irrational policies. Starting with the Bush 8 year tour, and extended and renewed by the present Commander-in Chief their collective responsibility is written all over this mess. Teetering on the brink, America is already technically bankrupt. Why: because the 16 trillion dollar debt will never be repaid. Logic and rational thought were never the strong points on the liberal side of the aisle. Present negotiations are foolhardy when progressives knowingly request the unobtainable.  Will the Republicans unite and walk away from Obama’s nonsensical approach to budget management or will they cave in. We have three weeks to find out. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services. www.healthnetsreviewservices.com

Thursday, November 29, 2012

America's new morality


 

 

America’s new morality

 

 Acceptable levels of morality changed dramatically as the new millennium passed its first decade. Marriage once relegated to a man and woman found new meaning in laws enacted in nine states, with Maryland’s recent addition to this group. With same-sex marriage firmly accepted in these jurisdictions it is only a matter of time before the nation is pushed in the same direction. More recently, morality took another hit with changes in current thought concerning Marijuana usage. Eighteen states have decriminalized and or legalized this psychoactive pharmaceutical before the 2012 election. Colorado and the State of Washington went further by embedding into law the recreational use of small amounts of this drug. In these states someone 21 or older can go to a designated vendor and purchase one ounce of this mind-altering chemical. The unintended consequences of more pervasive usage of this weed, such as auto accidents, may cause these laws to be revisited in the near future. Not to be out done, the transgender and transsexual crowd decided that laws already in place do not protect them from discrimination. This group wants a set of laws carved out to improve their stance in any social or work setting. For example, a male dressed in female attire: should he use the male or female dressing room. Similarly, which bathroom would be appropriate for such individuals to use. Complex issues require complex answers with gender identity moving to the top of lawmakers’ list.   Where does society draw the line when challenged by issues that traditionalists find vulgar, indecent or outright irrational? Thirty-seven states, to their credit, have language in their Constitutions or other legal doctrine defining marriage as a heterosexual union. Are traditionalists wrong in attempting to obstruct the evolution of these segments of society so they will be perceived to be on equal footing with the rest of us? Nature found it biologically inconvenient to pair animals of the same-sex because of the obvious inability to propagate. Mankind has chosen a similar path knowing its future existence is at stake. Therefore laws were created to perpetuate and protect heterosexual unions, not the reverse. Those in same-sex partnerships or with gender identity concerns would naturally challenge the traditional basis for this rationale. Yet that very same rationale has successfully led this society into the future we are now living. Morality is contingent on standards established by a society in its entirety, not a subsegment of it. In 2012, those with gender identity issues will continue to prod politicians to give their concerns an airing and that may come soon. Gay marriage is making in-roads in legislative houses, but only the most progressive ones have given the go ahead for such unions. State Marijuana, laws reducing sanctions and penalties come in direct conflict with their federal counterparts. The question is: have states gone too far or not far enough remains for one our finer judges to determine. Mark Davis, MD. www.healthnetsreviewservices.com

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Privacy may not be so private anymore


Privacy may not be so private anymore

 

Complex issues that surround the most recent scandals in Washington question whether the government has the right to review private emails. FBI has diligently reviewed the private emails of General Petraeus and a woman said to be his paramour. As this scandal spreads revelations that the privacy of many may have been violated by a government agency that is overreaching. Information to date notes that the FBI had no court order to check the Petraeus’ emails nor of other people involved, some yet to be identified. The question arises are our emails and other digital communications safe. For the last 5 days all spectrums of the media have debated this point with a consensus agreeing that privacy has been redefined in this digital age. In defense of FBI, former agents have noted that protocols require this agency to check emails where national security may be at risk. Classified documents have been found in the computer of General Petraeus’ paramour. Three days after the election it was determined the origins of these documents could not be traced to the former CIA director. Can your emails be gleaned for data at the will of a government agency? This issue becomes quasi in nature do to a number of issues. The Patriot Acted signed into law one month after the Twin Towers fell gives the government expansive abilities to monitor emails. One caveat is built into the law that requires several levels of approval for monitoring unless an extreme emergency exists. America’s newest government bureaucracy, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) also has power, under certain circumstances, to monitor your electronic mail. Software exists that can select out key words and phrases, that may be of a threatening nature, is utilized across the social media including emails. In the event a threat is perceived further investigation may be warranted.  Emails of all Americans including high ranking government officials, can be lawfully reviewed, without the knowledge of the writer as the law presently stands. No one should be surprised this is occurring because the nation lives under a level of fear not felt since the days of the Cold War. Becareful how you construct your emails, more than one person may be reading them. Mark Davis, MD www.healthnetsreviewservices.com

Thursday, November 8, 2012

2012 Election: Did anybody really win


2012 election: Did anybody really win

 

Prevailing notions that Obama had a clean sweep in the Electoral process may not be accurate. There was nothing clean about his assault on the opposing candidate. Campaign rhetoric usually takes on a vicious tone as Election Day approaches. Unfortunately, the democrats put their message before the public in a manner that sinks to new lows, for a president who wanted to retain power at all costs. Accusations that Romney was a murderer, a racist, a homophobe, a job killer, insensitive to the needs of the poor, anti-motherhood, a religious intolerant are but a few of the claims levied from the Obama camp against a very decent man. One of the strangest commercials, run by the democrats, was a young woman describing who she would like as her first sex partner, somehow relating that event to voting for Obama. Too many references are available describing the indecencies perpetrated by an Administration that was desperate to retain power.

 

Romney’s laid back casual approach to politics did not attract the groups necessary to garner sufficient votes for his drive to the White House. Hispanics were not moved by his staunch aversion to allow illegals to roam the ranges of America unhindered by the law. Birth control became an issue when women were demanding free medications under Obamacare and Romney sided with the churches against this issue. Soccer moms were aloof from the Romney message perhaps because of his wealth or perceived detachment from his own children. Afro Americans had mixed feelings about his faith, wealth and most important his minimal campaigning amongst them. Romney’s message was clear, succinct and forward-looking but most wanted to keep the status quo alive. Many dependent on the government saw Romney as the person who would turn-off the financial spigot, leaving them with an uncertain future. Romney did not lose because he was a bad candidate. He lost because he was too good for those who have become accustomed to a free ride through government offerings. Obama was their man, full of hope and a lot of change for their pockets. The question did anybody really win on Election Day? The answer is a resounding no. Four more years of bad energy policies, an out of control EPA, health legislation that does not fulfill its stated intentions, schools on a downward slope, ongoing reductions in our military capacities, more redistribution of wealth, a foreign policy in tatters and more. America lost on November 6, 2012 and tyranny won. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services. platomd@gmail.com

Friday, November 2, 2012

Maryland's questionable questions: should you vote for them


Maryland’s questionable questions: should you vote for them

 

Question 4 takes Marylanders into the World of illegal immigration. This question is written in such a manner, one becomes dizzy after scanning it. Offering “illegal residents of the state” reduced tuition in 4 year colleges based on a list of criteria that would make sophists proud. These criteria note the illegal student must be filing income tax returns, graduated from a Maryland high school, registered with selective service system and accumulated 60 credit hours in a community college. Illegals are just that illegal. Does the liberal O’Malley administration want us to believe these illegals are registering for selective service and filing not necessarily paying income taxes? Maryland has a great heart when it comes to the down and out. The state’s insatiable treasury continues to raise fees, taxes, tolls and more to fund illegals in high schools, colleges and sundry other programs.  Why would anyone with a sound mind support a government that admits through its activities they are acting outside Maryland and Federal Law? Please read Question 4 closely, the money you save may be your own.

Question 6 moves gay unions into the realm of marriage legitimatizing their coupling into law. A key proviso of this intended question provides for certain protections of the clergy in the event they refuse to perform such ceremonies. This politically charged question divides Marylanders into two groups, the yays and the nays, of which this writer is the latter. Any legal argument generated by the gay and lesbian crowd for a marriage certificate can be countered with laws already embedded in Maryland statue giving them certain rights they seek. To redefine marriage redefines history, theology, biology and many other related topics. This is one question that a person will have to dig deep into his or her soul to decide. Medias’ convoluted perspective on this subject side steps many issues against this question. Before casting your ballot one way or the other, review this question thoroughly, the core of the country still sides against this issue.

Question 7 assumes that Marylanders have a pervasive level of ignorance. During the reign of Governor Bob Ehrlich gambling was cast in the media as evil. Tens of thousands would become addicted to these one arm bandits. Families would be destroyed and so forth. When the democrats took over the reins of the governorship, all the purported arguments against gambling vanished! Commercials running every ten minutes detail a state government that will collapse unless gaming expansion occurs. Children will not be educated if this question fails to pass. Jobs will be lost to neighboring states and a host of calamities will befall Maryland without more slots, more casinos and table games. The truth I noted in another article, Maryland’s deceptive casino ads, remains the truth. There is no legislation on the books or pending requiring casino money to be utilized for education. Adding more casinos dilutes revenues from those facilities already functioning. The lie that jobs will be fleeing to other states is just that a lie. My question is: who will build these new houses of gambling? Out of state workers, illegals or closed shop unions most likely will make the bucks. From every angle this law is perceived, Marylanders will not see the benefits purported by the state and their deceptive ads. When deciding on Question 7 ask your out of work friends or family members if they will have a chance at these new jobs. I would bet the house that most would say no. Mark Davis MD President of Healthnets Review Services, platomd@gmail.com

Friday, October 26, 2012

To stent or not to stent: ask a lawyer



 

Recently a Towson Maryland law firm filed medical malpractice cases against 8 physicians alleging inappropriate implantation of stents into the hearts of 39 patients. According to the case filings these procedures were performed at Saint Joseph’s Hospital, the same facility where cardiologist Dr. Mark Midei had similar accusations thrown his way. Since 2009 over two hundred claims have been filed for misuse of stents echoing the most recent filings. To add to the fray another law firm has now come forward with additional claims which are being processed as this article takes form. Collectively these three hundred cases have several elements in common, quasi science and hired guns to support the contentions of the filers. In an attempt to prove that the art of medicine is an exact science lawyers have gone to the extreme making representations of a very specious nature. Stenting is an inexact science. Decisions to stent are made by highly trained individuals who make determinations based on a complex set of variables. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved stents for blockages greater than 70% of an arterial occlusion. Physicians unlike those who file legal cases for sport realize that heart attacks can occur without blockages, with partial arterial blockage or at the threshold established by the FDA. To accuse a physician of hyper-inflating the occlusion size to stent an artery borders on the absurd.

 

Reviewing dozens of studies concerning the appropriate use of stent technology, one notes major variations in their application throughout the United States. Patients presenting with chest pain who are found to have a coronary artery blockage of less than seventy percent are difficult prospects to treat based on current recommendations. At this point many factors converge in a physician’s mind to arrive at the appropriate decision for that specific patient. Many physicians will take the conservative route never stenting unless the FDA’s artificial numbers are realized. This style of practice may keep a physician outside the courtroom but end up expediting the demise of the patient.  Physicians who are more aggressive save lives but risk the hammer of a judicial system designed to destroy their careers. Three hundred patients each with a set of symptoms specific to themselves sought medical help when they felt their lives were threatened. Once cured, these former patients jumped on the proverbial bandwagon to assault those who managed their medical care hoping to cash in on the rush to judgment.  In fairness to these healers each and every case should be examined separately from the larger group. In the event that anyone or all of these legal filings are fraudulent the lawyer and the patient should both be held up for sanctions. Alternatively, if there is “solid evidence” that medical practice was inadequate a reasonable compensation should be allocated. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services.   platomd@gmail.com  

To stent or not to stent: ask a lawyer


To stent or not to stent: ask a lawyer

 

Recently a Towson Maryland law firm filed medical malpractice cases against 8 physicians alleging inappropriate implantation of stents into the hearts of 39 patients. According to the case filings these procedures were performed at Saint Joseph’s Hospital, the same facility where cardiologist Dr. Mark Midei had similar accusations thrown his way. Since 2009 over two hundred claims have been filed for misuse of stents echoing the most recent filings. To add to the fray another law firm has now come forward with additional claims which are being processed as this article takes form. Collectively these three hundred cases have several elements in common, quasi science and hired guns to support the contentions of the filers. In an attempt to prove that the art of medicine is an exact science lawyers have gone to the extreme making representations of a very specious nature. Stenting is an inexact science. Decisions to stent are made by highly trained individuals who make determinations based on a complex set of variables. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved stents for blockages greater than 70% of an arterial occlusion. Physicians unlike those who file legal cases for sport realize that heart attacks can occur without blockages, with partial arterial blockage or at the threshold established by the FDA. To accuse a physician of hyper-inflating the occlusion size to stent an artery borders on the absurd.

 

Reviewing dozens of studies concerning the appropriate use of stent technology, one notes major variations in their application throughout the United States. Patients presenting with chest pain who are found to have a coronary artery blockage of less than seventy percent are difficult prospects to treat based on current recommendations. At this point many factors converge in a physician’s mind to arrive at the appropriate decision for that specific patient. Many physicians will take the conservative route never stenting unless the FDA’s artificial numbers are realized. This style of practice may keep a physician outside the courtroom but end up expediting the demise of the patient.  Physicians who are more aggressive save lives but risk the hammer of a judicial system designed to destroy their careers. Three hundred patients each with a set of symptoms specific to themselves sought medical help when they felt their lives were threatened. Once cured, these former patients jumped on the proverbial bandwagon to assault those who managed their medical care hoping to cash in on the rush to judgment.  In fairness to these healers each and every case should be examined separately from the larger group. In the event that anyone or all of these legal filings are fraudulent the lawyer and the patient should both be held up for sanctions. Alternatively, if there is “solid evidence” that medical practice was inadequate a reasonable compensation should be allocated. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services.   platomd@gmail.com  

To stent or not to stent: that is the question


To stent or not to stent: that is the question

 

Recently a Towson Maryland law firm filed medical malpractice cases against 8 physicians alleging inappropriate implantation of stents into the hearts of 39 patients. According to the case filings these procedures were performed at Saint Joseph’s Hospital, the same facility where cardiologist Dr. Mark Midei had similar accusations thrown his way. Since 2009 over two hundred claims have been filed for misuse of stents echoing the most recent filings. To add to the fray another law firm has now come forward with additional claims which are being processed as this article takes form. Collectively these three hundred cases have several elements in common, quasi science and hired guns to support the contentions of the filers. In an attempt to prove that the art of medicine is an exact science lawyers have gone to the extreme making representations of a very specious nature. Stenting is an inexact science. Decisions to stent are made by highly trained individuals who make determinations based on a complex set of variables. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved stents for blockages greater than 70% of an arterial occlusion. Physicians unlike those who file legal cases for sport realize that heart attacks can occur without blockages, with partial arterial blockage or at the threshold established by the FDA. To accuse a physician of hyper-inflating the occlusion size to stent an artery borders on the absurd.

 

Reviewing dozens of studies concerning the appropriate use of stent technology, one notes major variations in their application throughout the United States. Patients presenting with chest pain who are found to have a coronary artery blockage of less than seventy percent are difficult prospects to treat based on current recommendations. At this point many factors converge in a physician’s mind to arrive at the appropriate decision for that specific patient. Many physicians will take the conservative route never stenting unless the FDA’s artificial numbers are realized. This style of practice may keep a physician outside the courtroom but end up expediting the demise of the patient.  Physicians who are more aggressive save lives but risk the hammer of a judicial system designed to destroy their careers. Three hundred patients each with a set of symptoms specific to themselves sought medical help when they felt their lives were threatened. Once cured, these former patients jumped on the proverbial bandwagon to assault those who managed their medical care hoping to cash in on the rush to judgment.  In fairness to these healers each and every case should be examined separately from the larger group. In the event that anyone or all of these legal filings are fraudulent the lawyer and the patient should both be held up for sanctions. Alternatively, if there is “solid evidence” that medical practice was inadequate a reasonable compensation should be allocated. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services.   platomd@gmail.com  

To stent or not to stent: that is the question


To stent or not to stent: that is the question

 

Recently a Towson Maryland law firm filed medical malpractice cases against 8 physicians alleging inappropriate implantation of stents into the hearts of 39 patients. According to the case filings these procedures were performed at Saint Joseph’s Hospital, the same facility where cardiologist Dr. Mark Midei had similar accusations thrown his way. Since 2009 over two hundred claims have been filed for misuse of stents echoing the most recent filings. To add to the fray another law firm has now come forward with additional claims which are being processed as this article takes form. Collectively these three hundred cases have several elements in common, quasi science and hired guns to support the contentions of the filers. In an attempt to prove that the art of medicine is an exact science lawyers have gone to the extreme making representations of a very specious nature. Stenting is an inexact science. Decisions to stent are made by highly trained individuals who make determinations based on a complex set of variables. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved stents for blockages greater than 70% of an arterial occlusion. Physicians unlike those who file legal cases for sport realize that heart attacks can occur without blockages, with partial arterial blockage or at the threshold established by the FDA. To accuse a physician of hyper-inflating the occlusion size to stent an artery borders on the absurd.

 

Reviewing dozens of studies concerning the appropriate use of stent technology, one notes major variations in their application throughout the United States. Patients presenting with chest pain who are found to have a coronary artery blockage of less than seventy percent are difficult prospects to treat based on current recommendations. At this point many factors converge in a physician’s mind to arrive at the appropriate decision for that specific patient. Many physicians will take the conservative route never stenting unless the FDA’s artificial numbers are realized. This style of practice may keep a physician outside the courtroom but end up expediting the demise of the patient.  Physicians who are more aggressive save lives but risk the hammer of a judicial system designed to destroy their careers. Three hundred patients each with a set of symptoms specific to themselves sought medical help when they felt their lives were threatened. Once cured, these former patients jumped on the proverbial bandwagon to assault those who managed their medical care hoping to cash in on the rush to judgment.  In fairness to these healers each and every case should be examined separately from the larger group. In the event that anyone or all of these legal filings are fraudulent the lawyer and the patient should both be held up for sanctions. Alternatively, if there is “solid evidence” that medical practice was inadequate a reasonable compensation should be allocated. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services.   platomd@gmail.com  

Monday, October 15, 2012

Why Obama will lose the election


Why Obama will lose the election

 

President Obama’s minimal credibility has been reduced even further by his Administration’s cover up of the slaughter of the American Ambassador to Libya and three other individuals. Murdering the Ambassador was not sufficient for the perpetrators of this heinous crime. There are reports that his body was brutally sodomized that have not been debunked by anyone with rank in the Administration. A chorus of Obama minions took to the airways within 24 hours of this terrorist act claiming that a movie from Youtube was the cause of these atrocities. Susan Rice, the United Nations Ambassador, spread the word on national news programs that the Libyan actions against the United States Embassy were spontaneous, comparing them to events in Egypt a few days earlier, faulting the Youtube video against the Muslim Prophet as the cause of their disruptive behavior. Within 48 hours after Ambassador Rice’s outright lies concerning these murders a dozen more Obama representatives including Hillary Clinton joined in stating the same script. Collectively these individuals knew at the time of their interviews that the information they were providing to the public was false. Further, they were covering for the ineptitudes of the State Department, White house and others who failed to heed the warnings of those on the ground that more security was needed to fend off threatening actions in this region against United States personnel. Obama and Biden both claim they did not know of the dozens of requests for increased security. State Department officials have come forward claiming the Obama Administration was warned of potential threats to the Libyan Embassy and they deterred from acting on them. One report noted the Obama Administration wanted to display a scene of normalcy around the Libyan compound and increased security would detract from this view. Obama and his Administration’s spin on recent events in the Middle East including apologies for a movie few have seen, make light of a terrible tragedy involving four deaths. Vice President Biden’s recent remarks during his debate with Paul Ryan were disingenuous that he was unaware of requests for more security in Libya, have been proven untrue in Congressional hearings now moving forward. In some circles these events are being described as worse than Watergate, especially for the senseless loss of lives that could have been prevented if Obama had only attended some of the security briefings presented for his pleasure daily. Obama will lose this election because his ineptitudes and spin are now on display for all to see. The profound tragedy noted here and subsequent cover up now unraveling before investigative committees in Congress display the real Obama, not the manufactured one created by the hard left. This election comes down to a competition between ideologies. Vote right this November, any other direction will take America into an abyss. Mark Davis MD, author of the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Surviving in the age of Obama


Surviving in the age of Obama

 

Much to the chagrin of the Democratic Party President Obama displayed his true abilities last week without a teleprompter before him. His sorrowful performance before 66 million people underlines a similar posture in his approach to governing. Since 2009, when Obama took the reins of office, he immediately went to work with the intent to diminish American institutions and industries. With extraordinary expertise he has devitalized a once thriving nation. During Obama’s reign the military has seen reductions in ships, planes, armaments and most importantly personnel. America’s nuclear arsenal has seen a similar fate. As Obama’s TSA expands our rights seem to be diminishing. Is the TSA the national police force Obama had envisioned during one of his many rants? National Aeronautics and Space Administration is now a shadow of its former self. With the swipe of a pen Obama took America from the lead in space exploration to a country that depends on the soviets for a ride to the International Space Station. Always looking to outdo himself his next assault was to create situations making America more dependent on foreign energy sources. Blocking pipeline construction, inhibiting oil drilling throughout the country on both public and private lands and utilizing the EPA to hammer other sources of energy America will soon be starving for a product we have in abundance. On the consumer side gasoline prices have nearly doubled in most locales, food prices seem to move only one way and consumer goods are all made somewhere else. Obama’s international treaties always seem to favor the other guy which sends our manufacturing jobs there and forcing us to accept their cheap goods. Recent events should have given Americans pause to consider who is really at the helm of this nation. Our Libyan ambassador was murdered along with other innocent people because the White House refused to fortify protections for this embassy. Media reports, in recent days, are discounting Obama’s “explanations” of events surrounding this tragedy. More importantly his explanations appear to be excuses for the actors of this heinous crime. Obama’s actions are stoking the fires in the Middle East by apologizing for their blatant disregard of a sovereign nation, Israel, and sending more money to those who would kill Americans without blinking. Conservative and liberal media have found agreement on one point the Obama Administration has misrepresented recent events in the Middle East and as a result Congress is planning hearings to root out the real basis for our crumbling foreign policy in this region. Surviving during Obama’s reign means taking handouts from an over stretched treasury instead of working in a job of one’s choice. The Presidential debate put America on notice that there is something very wrong in Washington and with the leaders who maintain it. November is the time to change the direction of America. Let us hope it is a change for the better. Mark Davis MD, author of the forthcoming book Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Romney's TKO of Obama


Romney’s TKO of Obama

 

Mitt Romney delivered a TKO last night when he faced an unprepared incumbent in a debate that went in one direction. In a 90 minute matchup between two men with very different ideologies the Republican candidate dominated every round. From the President’s posture to his low toned answers he was unable to respond to all the jabs being thrown his way. America’s failing economy was the central theme of the night and President Obama was unable to muster the energy and clarity to explain his four years of failures to the audience or those who tuned in. Obama’s tired diatribe that larger government is the answer to an economy that is in the doldrums was drowned out by Romney’s point by point reasons to shrink the federal work force. Obama’s paltry answers to a well-rehearsed Romney assault on his policies did not go unnoticed by the media outlets covering the debate. MSNBC shockingly pronounced Romney the winner though Al Sharpton tried but failed to put a positive spin on a poor performance. Jim Lehrer, the night’s poor excuse for a moderator, finally came around to the subject of Obamacare during the latter third of this disaster for Obama. Similar to his other answers Obama had trouble justifying this monstrous legislation while Romney enumerated why it should be abolished. Subject after subject Romney was on the attack clarifying the less than factual statements the President had just presented. Romney and the President have been in a statistical dead heat for several months but the tide seems to be turning away from the President. Obama has been spending heavily on media spin in the last few weeks, but it has not put a dent in his poll numbers. This first of three presidential debates, with one VP debate interspersed with the others, will define an election that may shape America’s future for the next several decades. Obama was lost without his teleprompter as he searched for answers to the most basic questions. During this one sided forum the moderator attempted to help Obama by leading him in a certain direction, but the President could not find the fire power to return the volley. One interesting side note, Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland was challenged by a reporter on Obama’s performance. Amazing as it may seem the Governor gave Obama high grades for his efforts using the usual democratic spin as cover. Mitt Romney’s TKO of the President was not a fatal blow to Obama’s campaign though it was close. With two debates to follow on the presidential side Romney needs to continue pummeling away at Obama’s failures, if not there is still time for the tables to turn back towards the President. Mark Davis, MD author of the forthcoming book Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Romney: a conservative republican


                                          Romney: a conservative democrat

 

Mitt Romney is no stranger to politics or political causes. With a track record dating back over fifty years when his father was governor of Michigan to the present he has an encyclopedic knowledge of the political landscape that has affected America over that period of time. Romney is a stranger to the Republican narrative. Transitioning from an independent with democratic leanings twenty years ago to a full-fledged conservative in 2012 has many questioning his true stripes. Attacked by the liberal media for his acute business acumen, he distinguishes himself from his opponent by taking a middle of the road approach to tax policies. Unfortunately Romney echoes the “close the corporate loophole strategy” which is part of the democrat agenda to lay waste to the business community. When discussing foreign affairs he leaves the impression that his thoughts have not coalesced into a unitary position on this issue, few specifics with many generalizations. Obamacare comes to end, he claims, in the event the election goes his way. Yet many people have misgivings that he will forsake his promises of healthcare reform and leave much of Obamacare intact. This notion is based on the social program commonly called Romneycare that he left behind in the Bay State in 2006. The media has not vetted this health catastrophe in Massachusetts with sufficient detail to display it spawned Obamacare. Many tenets in Romneycare leave one wondering whether the liberal in Romney submerged his conservative side to bring about the chimera now plaguing his home state. During one Republican debate Romney deemphasized the value of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) stating there were more important issues on Earth to deal with. Yet when discussing how he would manage the military he answered that present World problems necessitate expansion of American Armed Forces. He never realized that NASA provides a strategic part of American defenses through various programs. His mentation concerning NASA coincides with the actions already taken by Obama to reduce the significance of this valuable asset. Romney’s stand on entitlements has not been clarified. During his tenure as Governor of the Bay State he markedly expanded entitlements allowing us a glimpse of the potential enactments he would bring to fruition if he attains the presidency. Many would question Romney’s conservative exterior, the evidence is clear that he does move to the right of President Obama. Does Romney engender Republican ideals, a clear case can be made that he doesn’t. Would this author vote for him? Yes, because of the detriment inflicted on America by Obama, Romney is America’s only choice. This November election is crucial because two competing ideologies are vying for your vote. Let us hope that we regain our constitutional democracy this election cycle, otherwise four years from now we could be speaking Arabic. Mark Davis MD, author of the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Romney: A conservative democrat

Romney:
                                          Romney: a conservative democrat

 

Mitt Romney is no stranger to politics or political causes. With a track record dating back over fifty years when his father was governor of Michigan to the present he has an encyclopedic knowledge of the political landscape that has affected America over that period of time. Romney is a stranger to the Republican narrative. Transitioning from an independent with democratic leanings twenty years ago to a full-fledged conservative in 2012 has many questioning his true stripes. Attacked by the liberal media for his acute business acumen, he distinguishes himself from his opponent by taking a middle of the road approach to tax policies. Unfortunately Romney echoes the “close the corporate loophole strategy” which is part of the democrat agenda to lay waste to the business community. When discussing foreign affairs he leaves the impression that his thoughts have not coalesced into a unitary position on this issue, few specifics with many generalizations. Obamacare comes to end, he claims, in the event the election goes his way. Yet many people have misgivings that he will forsake his promises of healthcare reform and leave much of Obamacare intact. This notion is based on the social program commonly called Romneycare that he left behind in the Bay State in 2006. The media has not vetted this health catastrophe in Massachusetts with sufficient detail to display it spawned Obamacare. Many tenets in Romneycare leave one wondering whether the liberal in Romney submerged his conservative side to bring about the chimera now plaguing his home state. During one Republican debate Romney deemphasized the value of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) stating there were more important issues on Earth to deal with. Yet when discussing how he would manage the military he answered that present World problems necessitate expansion of American Armed Forces. He never realized that NASA provides a strategic part of American defenses through various programs. His mentation concerning NASA coincides with the actions already taken by Obama to reduce the significance of this valuable asset. Romney’s stand on entitlements has not been clarified. During his tenure as Governor of the Bay State he markedly expanded entitlements allowing us a glimpse of the potential enactments he would bring to fruition if he attains the presidency. Many would question Romney’s conservative exterior, the evidence is clear that he does move to the right of President Obama. Does Romney engender Republican ideals, a clear case can be made that he doesn’t. Would this author vote for him? Yes, because of the detriment inflicted on America by Obama, Romney is America’s only choice. This November election is crucial because two competing ideologies are vying for your vote. Let us hope that we regain our constitutional democracy this election cycle, otherwise four years from now we could be speaking Arabic. Mark Davis MD, author of the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com
A conservative democrat

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Maryland's deceptive casino advertising


Maryland’s deceptive casino advertising

 

Question 7 will be on the ballot this November. If approved a sixth casino will be built in Prince George’s County Maryland, table games will be permitted in existing casinos and the number of total slot machines in the state will rise from 15,000 to 16,500. A fierce media battle has ensued between its ardent supporters and enthusiastic opponents. Pro-forces believe that passage of this question would increase tax revenues, bring new jobs to Maryland, provide more funds for the education system and make gaming venues in the state more competitive with the surrounding states. Opposition forces believe that another casino will saturate the casino market reducing profits at existing sites, provide no guarantees that increased revenues will be targeted for education purposes and further enhance the possibility of gambling addiction in the state. Another question brought to the surface in the last few weeks, who will be the benefactors of the new jobs created. Will these be only union shops or will non-union workers be accepted into the mix? Radio and visual media have been saturated with commercials, with the majority of ads on the pro side of the issue. Wherever your thoughts drift to on this issue, the pro commercials are less than truthful. Charles Town Hollywood Casino in West Virginia already has table games so new jobs are not flying out of the state to this location. In a similar fashion, Delaware’s three casinos instituted table games several years ago, therefore no net jobs are finding their way to our small neighbor to the north. During the week Delaware Park’s table games go begging for usage many nights. The argument that Maryland is losing jobs to other venues for lack of table games is erroneous. Question seven does not guarantee that any additional revenues will be directed towards education or to someone’s wind farm project, yet the pro commercials tout this prospect as real. Maryland’s Hollywood Casino has loss significant revenue since Maryland Live has opened. A sixth casino could rip a financial hole in Maryland Live’s revenues. The latter casino has already seen a fall-off in patronage during the week. Maryland can only tighten their slot payouts so much before people go to other venues. Many have already discovered their buck goes much further in neighboring states. Poor planning, greed and mischaracterization of the benefits gambling would bring to the state have put the gaming industry in Maryland into a turmoil. Instead of worrying about expanding, the Governor and his minions should consider strengthening the venues already built because failure of these facilities appears to be a real possibility. Mark Davis MD, platomd@gmail.com author of Demons of Democracy and the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Obama to Jews everywhere: drop dead


Obama to Jews everywhere: drop dead

 

Annihilate Jews everywhere is the message from a subpopulation of anti-Semites scattered across the Middle East. Media reports emanating from France today report a bomb ignited in a kosher supermarket, four people were injured. Jews have been targeted all over the World to be killed. Israel harbors nearly half the World’s Jewish population, which is estimated at fifteen million people, who have been exposed to this type of toxic threat since its inception in 1948. Jews are not safe in their homeland or anywhere else because of an intense hatred fostered against them by Arab extremists. Rocket attacks on Jewish cities and settlements in Israel are a regular occurrence.  Violent attacks have been extended to every nation with a Jewish enclave. America has not been spared from the brutality inflicted on Jews elsewhere. In nearly every attack an Arabic organization or someone of Arabic extraction has claimed responsibility. Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s blatant threats to wipe Israel off the map have been taken seriously by some but not President Obama. Billions to the Muslim Brotherhood are the offerings from a nation on the verge of bankruptcy, scrapes for Israel is Obama’s message to this small but intrinsically strong nation. With America taking a distance position concerning Israel’s defense and Obama’s curry favoring with violent Arab groups Jews around the World are in a very precarious position. Middle Eastern terrorists and regimes that support them are gearing up for war as I write these words. Their focus is Israel with Iran leading the charge. As a Jew I was not surprised that Obama believes the threat from Iran is mythical in nature and therefore pays lip service to requests from Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu for a direct meeting. Apparently scheduling with Letterman and his celebrity friends takes precedent. Netanyahu wants Obama to be more actively engaged with the Iranian nuclear crisis emerging from the bowels of a country that openly promotes terrorism. So far Obama has turned his head away from the only democracy in the Middle East. In the event the Israeli population relocated to Alaska, the Muslim threat would follow them there. Profound hatreds, that are very hard to define, do not evaporate because people relocate. Osama bin Laden believed there were Jews in the World Trade Center Towers is one of the reasons given for horrific attack on 9/11. Jews all over this planet are at risk no matter where they live or travel from an unrelenting evil embedded in a small group of Arabic extremists. Living in Maryland for three decades I have felt the wrath of anti-Semitism from government entities, medical community and public at-large. Anti-Semitism is real and palpable when it occurs. Anti-Semitic acts are reportedly on the rise throughout this country and in other nations. The shoppers in the French kosher market went into a store to buy necessities but were carried out nearly dead because of a movement that has no bounds. Presently we have a president who enables the haters with very little conscience concerning his actions or inactions respectively. This November, in the event you vote democrat, it could be a vote that dooms Israel and its population. Mark Davis MD, author of Demons of Democracy. platomd@gmail.com

Monday, September 17, 2012

Prelude to Armageddon: Obama's coming war


Prelude to Armageddon: Obama’s coming war

 

Movie critics are killing Americans in the Middle East. Susan Rice, America’s Ambassador to the United Nations, echoed this theme in a Fox interview this weekend. A chorus of other high ranking Obama minions sang the same song in other media venues in the last few days. One major problem few if any of the protestors have seen the purported movie fueling their anger and even fewer cared about its contents. Twenty one countries have come under attack in what appears to be a well-organized series of events utilizing rent-a-mobs to wreck -havoc on American installations. Protestors, armed with the latest fire power, timed their assaults to occur around the 9/11 anniversary. These attacks were neither spontaneous nor caused by a movie that no one has seen. With a consistency that has become signature for Obama, he blamed anyone and everyone except his own actions for the fires still raging in these third rate societies. Information has emerged from various sources that America’s national security infrastructure was warned of potential assaults on overseas facilities weeks before they happened. Perhaps the president should show up for an occasional security briefing, knowing Obama golf and Letterman come first. War is coming to the Middle East. This time it will not be a minor skirmish but a major event. Potentially millions will die to prove one ideology is superior to another. Religious zealots want Israel to disappear from the face of the Earth. Harsh rhetoric from Iran’s president and the council that backs him expound on this theme daily. Obama and his administration display a callous disregard for the potential threat facing the only democracy in this region by ignoring pleas from Israel’s leaders to take a stand against a country bent on producing nuclear weapons. Months not years away are the timelines for Iran’s nuclear capabilities to become reality. Obama believes otherwise by dismissing Israel’s claim of a pending assault by this rogue nation. America will be dragged into the next war. My question is whose side will Obama defend? From this author’s perspective there is an excellent chance Israel, for the first time in its history, will not have America at its back. The real Obama will surface leaving Israel nearly defenseless. Armageddon is coming, who will shoot first. Mark Davis MD, platomd@gmail.com. Author of the forthcoming book Obamacare: Dead on Arrival.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Obama fiddles as American interests burn


Obama fiddles as American Interests burn
As American interests were burning Obama was churning for money on the campaign trail. Death of an American Ambassador and his three colleagues can be directly blamed on President Obama and his anti-Semitic colleagues in the State Department. Obama’s policies of appeasement along with large checks, courtesy of the American taxpayer, will not douse the fires burning in the minds of those with profound hatreds for this country. Across North Africa and in the Middle East assaults on our embassies and consulates have taken place coincident with the anniversary of 9/11. Intelligence chatter reported by the media indicated the potential for an attack on American facilities 48 hours prior to the horrific events that have occurred. Obama did not order fortification of our embassies knowing this sensitive information and the 11th anniversary of the greatest tragedy to hit the American mainland in history. Off on fund raising tours to keep himself in power, Obama paid lip service to a problem that has been festering for some time. Using a film that Muslims claim is offensive to their prophet as a pretext to attack American interests and burn our flag does not explain the intense rage now playing out through the Arab World. Underlying hatreds for this country have surfaced which are multi-factorial in nature. Money to prop up past dictators has been one reason considered as an ignition point that fuels their intense emotions. Freedom of religion observed in this nation is abhorrent to those who have never known it.  American’s kinship with Israel could be at the top of the list. Whatever reason given for these attacks, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton failed to observe the enormity of the problem and now many are suffering for their incompetence. Numerous questions are now at the forefront of debate in the media concerning the horrific deaths of our Ambassador and his associates. Why were there so few security personnel on the premises of the Libyan compound? Who is ultimately responsible for security in government installations overseas (as if we didn’t know)? Were the few people assigned to security detail allowed to carry loaded weapons (Obama prefers unloaded weapons unless it is for his security)? With Obama’s ability to stifle information outflow we may never know the answers to these questions. Presently Obama is traversing the country looking for a few dollars for moving expenses in January of 2013. Anyone who would vote for him under the present circumstances is either receiving aid from his administration or is mesmerized by his personal style and grace. America needs a leader who will confront these egregious events with backbone and authority which we have not seen from this White House. Obama’s ineptitudes are now on display for all to see, vote right this November, we need a new

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Obama apologizes for America's existence


Obama apologizes for America’s existence

 

Middle East terrorists murdered the United States Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans yesterday in Benghazi. Conflicting reports have surfaced concerning the exact methods utilized to perpetrate this egregious act. Obama with his usual apologetic style initiated his response to this tragedy noting he rejects any denigration of others religious beliefs but there is no justification for this assault on Americans or American values. Amazing as it may be Obama and his minions were apologizing for a movie the terrorists claim was offensive to their religion and produced in the United States. The latter statement has not been verified, yet knowing Obama his irrationality has room for the sensitivities of terrorists not for the America that gave him his present pulpit. Most recently Obama turned down a request by Israel’s Prime Minister for a meeting in New York City where the United Nations General Assembly is meeting. Violence is flaring up across the Middle East and Israel has a set of concerns which apparently are not shared by Obama. The reason given for the rejection was scheduling problems believe it or not. Obama was scheduling himself to be on Letterman and had no time for affairs of state. After a public outrage from coast to coast ensued Obama took time out of his busy campaign schedule and connected with Israel’s top leader by phone. Whatever transpired in their exchange Obama probably yawned and went back to his leaderless role. With an embassy in Egypt and a consulate in Libya assaulted in a very short time these events appear more than a coincidence. Actions such as these could be a prelude to more organize events coming in the near future which could put other Americans at risk. Obama’s team is already moving to cover the terrorists’ tracks by stating these are isolated events and we will not abandon our “Middle East Friends.” Hillary Clinton still plans to write billion dollar checks to these two countries harboring terrorists. Horrific events in the last few days should have consequences aimed at those who harbor terrorists and the terrorists themselves. Rewarding rogue governments with American money, much of it borrowed, is the wrong approach to stop these regimes from supporting any more violence. Obama’s apologies sprinkled with taxpayer dollars should awaken the few sound minds left in America that something is wrong in Washington and needs to be fixed. Election Day can bring a new repairman to the White House or continue the same one in office who has been asleep for the last 43 months, your choice. Mark Davis MD author of the forthcoming book Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Obama's last days in office


Obama’s last days in office

 

Decades from now when Obama has left the scene presidential historians will finally have an opportunity to summarize his “4 years” in office. Their review shall chronicle a man who was under water from the moment he took the reins of power from his predecessor. Given the mandate to manage a nation he decided early on to deconstruct every institution and tradition that made America strong. His hate for the country was so profound he curry favored with America’s enemies to strengthen them while weakening the platform that gave him power. Israel to him was the enemy not the nations that harbored terrorists. When awakened one morning that Iran had launched a missile on a trajectory into the heart of Israel he yawned and went back to sleep. On that very day, late in his presidency, Americans watched as their inept president would not stand with the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel destroyed every military installation within the confines of Iranian space with minor loss of life on both sides. Though Obama tried to take some credit for this remarkable feat historians would note he had no part in the planning or execution of these retaliatory raids. Obama lied for the last time while in office. His republican counterpart cleverly exploited this opening and won by a landslide in November of 2012. When these contenders changed seats in January of 2013, a final accounting of Stimulus and Tarp monies were begun. A scandal that would tarnish the Nation for decades was uncovered. Tens of billions were squandered on projects generated by friends of Obama, very little went to places to improve Americans lives. Obama and his Administration were criminally liable for kickbacks, bribes and misspent monies diverted from their main purposes to help a country recover and given to an element who would subvert the nation. Unfortunately, the new president wanted no part of any prosecution and pardoned his staunch enemy. Historians create records to help future generations avoid catastrophes that befell those that came before. Obama had closed his mind to history because he repeated mistakes that were easily avoidable. The 2012 presidential election was noteworthy for the fact that Obama strengths turned out to be his biggest weaknesses. His ability to blurt out a great speech did not rectify the emptiness of its contents. Many of his supporters evaporated when they heard words they knew were untrue, the ballot box told the rest of the story. Obama lost the election not because the other candidate was so much better, only because he was so much worse. History is an excellent teacher, perhaps it is time the rest of us learn from it and vote right this November. Mark Davis, author of the forthcoming book, Obamacare Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Romney's hundred million voices


Romney’s hundred million voices

 

Millions may come out to greet President Obama as he travels town to town selling his plan of misery for America. One hundred million or more will come to see the favored candidate, Mitt Romney, as he brings his message of “hope and change” to a country starving for both. Two candidates with antithetical views on nation management: one who wants to see America as a new third world society and the other desires to revitalize America which will bring respect once again to a flag that has been flying at half-mast for the last four years. Civility will not allow me to describe the enormity of Obama’s decimation of every institution touched by his indecency, immorality and ineptitude. President Obama believes that systems he has put in place to extort money from the private sector and redistribute it to the indolent in society should be a norm. For this reason alone he should be replaced. Romney’s message has been heard by tens of millions. Some are suspicious of his words because of his governance of Massachusetts, yet most people believe he is the change the country needs to reset the economy and place us once more on center stage in the World. Last night Michelle Obama gave a well-rehearsed impassioned speech to a crowd who would vote for Stalin in the event he was up for bid. Michelle sold herself in those minutes as her voice echoed through the caverns of left wing supporters. Obama came out second in her soliloquy. President Obama’s fictitious characterizations by a wife desperate to stay in the White House gave me pause to note that Michelle is a better liar than her husband. America needs to hear that morality and God will be brought back into the White House not a scene from Harry met Sally. Michelle and the prior speakers failed at uplifting a society fatigued by rhetoric intended to keep America down. Romney introduces hope where Obama introduces dopes. One hundred million voices are crying out for change drowning out the purulent vocalizations of a party that has lost its soul and competence. Romney will change America just by bringing moral behaviors back into Washington, a place demoralized by the present atheism embedded in the democrat’s platform. Obama has already lost the election before the first votes have been cast, perhaps he should step aside and allow new management to take over earlier. Knowing Obama’s mannerisms and motivations he will continue his reign of destruction until his last day in office when the moving vans pull up to the back door. Join the chorus and vote right this November, there is no other way out of this mess. Mark Davis author of the forthcoming book Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Romneycare versus Obamacare: the real story


RomneyCare versus Obamacare: the real story

 

There is very good reason why the Romney has veered away from discussion of health policy when he was governor. Striking similarities embedded in these competing programs display they are close cousins and not distant relatives as we have been led to believe. During my preparation for the book Obamacare: Dead on Arrival facts were uncovered concerning Romneycare that have been deliberately overlooked by conservative media and will not be vetted by them before the election. Bureaucracy embedded in the Bay State’s vision of healthcare grows more extensive each year. Contrary to Romney Camp’s assertions that Romneycare  is not like Obamacare there are an extensive series of penalties and sanctions in the event you do not purchase health insurance for yourself or company as the case may be. In the first three years of Romneycare’s existence medical bankruptcies were not stemmed, they continued to rise. Health insurance premiums trended upwards not the reverse as intended. More perverse, individuals who maintained an income 300% above the federal poverty line were given assistance in purchasing insurance, meaning those with incomes of $90,000 received aid from the state. The under insured, those with minimal insurance coverage, expanded in the first three years of this program. Full coverage to those without plans has not been achieved, the very reason Romneycare was initiated. With cost overruns of hundreds of millions each year, a stressed out medical system that has yet to catch up with the requirements of this social experiment and a legislative initiative that forces people to purchase a product they don’t want Romney’s vision has not been the success stated by its enablers. Similar to Obamacare Massachusetts’ program has been a literal field day for lawyers. A deluge of legal challenges by individuals who refused to purchase health insurance required the elevation of a battalion of lawyers to administrative judges to try these cases, most were lost by the plaintiffs. Romney cannot run on Romneycare that is why he is running away from it. Obama will use his usual deprecating techniques to rough ride over his opponent. Romney must be ready to answer this challenge because it will surface during the debates. Voters on the edge could be thrown either way depending how Romney manages this subject. Mr. Romney expanded entitlements during his 4 year run as governor, yet he states he will rein in federal giveaways. Will Mr. Romney be another Trojan horse who sticks it to us or has he changed his menu of ideas, stay tuned. Mark Davis author of the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Romneycare versus Obamacare: the real story

Romneycare versus Obamacare: the real story

Monday, August 27, 2012

2016: the real story


2016: the real story

 

Expectations fell short when I viewed the recently released movie 2016, Obama’s America. Ninety percent of its themes and premises detailed a period prior to 2012. Obama’s second assault on America would look much different than discussed at the end of this pseudo-documentary. Every institution and tradition that made America strong would be diminished to a point where America mirrors the country of Obama’s origins. America’s Military, once capable of managing wars on multiple continents, has been reduced to a shadow of its former size. Left vulnerable to our enemies, Obama grants control of many government functions to the United Nations, further reducing our capacity for self-defense. Medical care is no long on demand, instead something as minor as a cold requires consent from a functionary sitting in the heart of District of Columbia. Masses of people die because access to diagnostics and therapeutics has been limited to pay for the monstrosity called Obamacare. Initial cost estimates less than a trillion dollars, as misrepresented by the President, now totaled ten trillion. Inflation once a respectable 2% now runs over 10% a year with unemployment reaching a consistent 15%. Obama’s intention to reduce our nuclear arsenal to zero is finally realized as a dozen countries continue produce more weapons. Twelve blue states seek bankruptcy protection because union thugs and liberal government operatives raided treasuries to pay for extravagances they could not afford. Obama still searches to bring unemployment down with his 5th stimulus to nowhere. Government employees earn two to three times their private counterparts under Obama’s last term. Continuing his promises to La Raza, Obama has opened the southern border allowing free movements between Mexico and the United States. Eric Holder continues in office with a trail of personal criminality that continues to mount against him. Obama’s czars have come out in the open releasing edict after edict pushing the country further into the economic doldrums. Redistribution of wealth continues at a record pace where the indolent and lazy receive more money that those who foot the bills. This enumeration only touches upon the detriment Obama will bring in a second term. Economic Armageddon, a demilitarized America, rampant union thuggery, a centralized medical system that expedites patients into the next world,  open borders, unprecedented gun control, food and energy shortages and much more. This is Obama’s America not the one projected in the movie. A vote for Obama is a vote for the latter. Vote right in 2012 or don’t vote at all. Mark Davis MD author of Demons of Democracy. Platomd@gmail.com

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Demons of Democracy: the book that lawyers hate


 

Demons of Democracy: the book lawyers hate

 

Acquisition of legal services is as close as your yellow pages. Thousands of advertisements by suited individuals claiming expertise in a wide variety of subjects are audaciously portrayed as saviors in this resource. Yet their portrayals as self-redeemers contain an underlying deception that jumps off the page when you review the gamut of expertise presented. The enumeration of qualifications is long and very untrustworthy even to the superficial observer. Demons of Democracy exposes that most of these ads are pure fiction and those behind them have minimal abilities to perform the tasks presented. More than a million lawyers roam the range of America’s legal landscape starving for the next case. Law schools, except for a few, do not prepare the student for the realities of 21st century America. Their minds are entrenched with basic subject matter, yet they are never provided the depth of training they will misrepresent to the public a few years later. Would you trust your life savings to someone with a 3 credit course in estate planning or allow someone with a 2 credit course in tax preparation to manage your portfolio of stocks? The answer to both of these questions would be no if you knew better. Unfortunately lawyers mislead people to believe they have a level of erudition which is not borne out by their education, training or experience. Most are burnt out social science majors who had no idea where to plant their feet after college. Law school or driving a cab was the logical alternatives for these individuals. Demons of Democracy discusses the profound ignorance of many who wear the badge as a member of a once esteemed profession. Demons examines the methodologies that are employed by tens of thousands of reprobates in suits to undermine every aspect of American culture and the institutions that made it strong. This creative resource notes that most functions performed by lawyers in the states are provided by government functionaries in other countries at pennies on the dollar. Our society is most noteworthy for criminalizing normal human behaviors by an overreaching governmental structure that lauds itself on jailing as many people as possible. Who benefits most, that’s right your corner lawyer. Demons of Democracy provides the rationale why lawyers should not manage complex organizational structures such as the Executive branch of our federal bureaucracy, just look at the present results. This is the last book lawyers would recommend, but the first one that should be on your reading list. Mark Davis MD author of the aforementioned book and the forthcoming work Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Stealing a medical license: Maryland style


Stealing a medical license: Maryland style

 

Physicians licensed in Maryland are subjected to the whims of a medical board that is politically appointed and run end to end by attorneys. Colleagues in other states are in disbelief when they learn that a lawyer not a physician is the executive director of this entity. They are even more perplexed that lawyers manage the compliance division and other sections of this administrative authority. Most astounding to them is 8 out of 21 members of this authority are “not” physicians. Maryland Board of Physicians was established to have special expertise in the medical domain. Yet its present construction is far from that initial format. Physicians no longer have to commit a medical mistake or series of them to be charged with an offense under the Medical Practices Act. Physicians can have their licenses revoked based on hearsay, false evidence against them, junk science, fallacious expert medical record reviews or sundry actions that do not pass the sniff test. An assault against Mark Davis MD exemplifies the depths this board would take to have his licensed pulled. In June of 2002 a subpoena for medical records arrived at this physician’s office. Four months later a note arrives from an “unknown reviewer” asking him to make several changes in his practice style. Since all procedures and paper formats had previously been approved by the authority sending the letter this physician questioned the unknown reviewer why the changes should be done when they were not justified. No answer came forth. One month later this Physician was invited to a clinical meeting with three other physicians, none of whom were initiated in the specific practice type of this author. This unfriendly encounter was further deprecated by the three member panel failing to be given documents sent to them by this physician.  The perpetrator of that act was none other than the lawyer who headed the compliance division. Forty eight months from the day of the subpoena a charging document that should have never have been drawn had the name of Ira Kaplan MD and a 2nd physician written across the title page. Dr. Kaplan, who is protected by peer review regulatory laws, was chosen as an expert medical record reviewer when he had no expertise in the specific subject contained in the charges. Though the board had forty months to prepare a case, this physician was given 3.5 months with two intervening holidays to prepare his case. The medical board through its Attorney General’s representative had no intention of allowing the truth to come forth. He used every legal trick at his disposal to block defendant witnesses from testifying, defendant legal briefs to be entered as evidence and other exculpatory documents from being brought before this administrative review. Worse he obstructed the testimony of a physician who worked for the medical board and enthusiastically wanted to testify on this author’s behalf. This Soviet style review had all its elements in favor of the Board of Physicians yet the administrative judge still found in the most part for this physician. He went so far as disregarding the testimony and report of one of the state appointed physicians and submerged most of the 2nd physicians report and testimony. The Board in a very vindictive and baseless manner reversed the court’s findings even though they had not heard the case which involved over four days of hearings before a reviewing judge who they requested. The judicial system treats physicians like dirt, especially the Appellate division. These courts are very friendly to Maryland administrative authorities because they are paid by the same pocket. A recent article entitled “Maryland Board of Physicians: corruption or business as usual” provides more details of the events at the Appellate level. You might as well be in China or Russia because Maryland does not believe in justice. This State only knows how to take money from the worker and hand it to the deadbeat. Maryland’s Attorney General’s Office debased itself in this case to bring this false action to fruition.  Members of the Board of Physicians knew or should have known the case involving Mark Davis MD was a fraudulent conception from end to end. The Maryland Legislature for the second time has fallen asleep at the wheel when profound fraud is being perpetrated directly under their proverbial noses. To right this wrong the Board should reverse their decision, not follow the Harford Court mandate that they pushed for and apologize to the thousands of patients they have screwed for the second time in four years. In the event any of the media has the cojones to discuss this interesting and vindictive assault on this physician please contact me. To my thousands of patients thank you for your support. platmd@gmail.com Mark Davis MD, President of Healthnets Review Services