The recall petition submitted to the State to begin to take signatures was also sent to Senator Menendez last week (Friday) as requested by the Judge reviewing the appeal. This was only a notification to Senator Menendez that a request to begin taking signatures was submitted.
We are waiting for the determination from the Judge as to whether we can begin taking signatures. We may receive word as soon as next week to begin. The lawyers continue to submit any necessary paperwork to get the approval to proceed with the recall petition. Please realize that approval of the petition itself to collect signatures is what we are seeking. Once the approval is received to proceed we will call upon all of our members to collect signatures; the member groups of NJ Tea Parties United (statewide) will also collect signatures. Only when sufficient signatures are collected can the actual petition be submitted and a decision to remove Senator Menendez be sought.
Was it a coincidence that Senator Menendez after receiving the paperwork on Friday was all over the talk shows during the weekend? Perhaps or perhaps not….you be the judge.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Friday, December 25, 2009
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Sussex County Tea Party Committee Announces Campaign to Recall Senator Robert Menendez
A "Committee to Recall U.S. Senator Robert Menendez," sponsored by the Sussex County Tea Party has announced plans to launch an effort to recall Senator Robert Menendez from his position in office. Helping to lead the charge is New Jersey Tea Parties United, the state's grass-roots coalition of county and regional Tea Party groups representing several thousand members in support of fiscal responsibility, individual liberty and limited government. The Committee filed a formal Notice of Intention to Recall with the Secretary of State's office on September 25, 2009. While the office of the Secretary of State acknowledged receipt of the Committee's Notice of Intention to Recall in a letter dated October 5, 2009, it has since provided no further communication. NJ state law requires that administrators respond either with an approval or with a notice of non-compliance stating the reasons within three business days of receiving the Notice, which was October 4, 2009. Since no response had been received, on November 25, 2009, the Committee filed a civil complaint in the Essex County Superior Court of New Jersey against Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State and Robert F. Giles, Director of the Division of Elections, demanding that the defendants be ordered to immediately and forthwith comply with state law by issuing a response to the Committee’s Notice of Intention. To date, the Secretary of State has ignored the Notice and the Complaint in violation of state law and the Committee is awaiting a decision from the court. For up to date information, go to: http://njrecallnow@blogspot.com, http://www.defendingamericanfreedom.com/, or http://www.njteapartiesunited.org/ .
Once the notice is approved by the state or by court Order, the Committee to Recall along with NJ Tea Parties United will spearhead a large coordinated petition drive to collect signatures in support of a special recall election. NJ state law requires a minimum number of signatures equivalent to at least 25% of the prior general election's registered voters in order to grant a special recall election.
A "Committee to Recall U.S. Senator Robert Menendez," sponsored by the Sussex County Tea Party has announced plans to launch an effort to recall Senator Robert Menendez from his position in office. Helping to lead the charge is New Jersey Tea Parties United, the state's grass-roots coalition of county and regional Tea Party groups representing several thousand members in support of fiscal responsibility, individual liberty and limited government. The Committee filed a formal Notice of Intention to Recall with the Secretary of State's office on September 25, 2009. While the office of the Secretary of State acknowledged receipt of the Committee's Notice of Intention to Recall in a letter dated October 5, 2009, it has since provided no further communication. NJ state law requires that administrators respond either with an approval or with a notice of non-compliance stating the reasons within three business days of receiving the Notice, which was October 4, 2009. Since no response had been received, on November 25, 2009, the Committee filed a civil complaint in the Essex County Superior Court of New Jersey against Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State and Robert F. Giles, Director of the Division of Elections, demanding that the defendants be ordered to immediately and forthwith comply with state law by issuing a response to the Committee’s Notice of Intention. To date, the Secretary of State has ignored the Notice and the Complaint in violation of state law and the Committee is awaiting a decision from the court. For up to date information, go to: http://njrecallnow@blogspot.com, http://www.defendingamericanfreedom.com/, or http://www.njteapartiesunited.org/ .
Once the notice is approved by the state or by court Order, the Committee to Recall along with NJ Tea Parties United will spearhead a large coordinated petition drive to collect signatures in support of a special recall election. NJ state law requires a minimum number of signatures equivalent to at least 25% of the prior general election's registered voters in order to grant a special recall election.
Appointed to a special one-year term by Governor Jon Corzine in November 2005, Robert Menendez was subsequently elected in 2006 during the mid-term election and has served in the US Senate for just over four years as a Democrat representing New Jersey. His term isn't scheduled to end until January 2013. The Recall Committee and New Jersey Tea Parties United believe that Senator Menendez has sided with rigidly partisan politicians in his repeated votes for cloture on a variety of key bills, stifling public debate in the Senate and denying New Jersey citizens transparency. For example, the Senator voted down an amendment that would have prevented Medicare from being raided for new entitlements[1], and another that would have limited the government's control over the health care of American families[2]. During this difficult financial period when Americans are cutting their own budgets and trying to save every penny, Senator Menendez voted down proposals to remove from spending bills a number of extravagant, excessive multi-million dollar projects that offered little or no short-term economic benefits[3]. When an amendment was proposed to transfer some of the country’s funding for the United Nations contributions to help offset the costs of providing assistance to family caregivers of our disabled veterans, he voted against it[4]. And in one case, Senator Menendez voted against allowing each member of Congress and the Secretary of Defense to simply review the allocation of certain taxpayer funds[5].
One NJ Tea Party member put it this way, “When NJ voters came out to the polls in November of 2008, they voted for the transparency and accountability that was promised. Rather than believe his own constituents who have desperately been trying to convey their wishes to him on health care reform without a government run option, he chooses to dismiss us, making public statements on the senate floor that our concerns are all nothing more than the greedy insurance companies lobbying to protect themselves.” It is statements like this that have convinced the Committee, NJ Tea Parties United, and other tea party members that Senator Menendez is one of many elitists in government that are more concerned with promoting their own careers than doing what is right for the American people. Those spearheading this effort hope that this will be the first recall of many throughout the nation and that the Constitutional government of the United States can be restored to the American people, to whom it belongs.
[1] Vote 368: H R 3590: Gregg Amdt. No. 2942
[2] Vote 360: H R 3590: Thune Amdt. No. 2901
[3] http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=495114&keyword=&phrase=&contain=
[4] Vote 310: H R 3326; Vote 285: H R 3288; Vote 284: H R 3288; Vote 283: H R 3288
[5] Vote 310: H R 3326: Coburn Amdt. No. 2565
Sussex County Tea Party contact:
RoseAnn Salanitri, Founder (Branchville, NJ)
Phone: (973)948-8553, Email: roseann216@gmail.com
Alternate Contact:
Michele Talam, NJ Tea Parties United
Email: MicheleNJTPC@verizon.net
Legal Contact:
Dan Silberstein, Esq.
Phone: (732) 388-8600, Email: dsilberstein@dpspc.com
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The Health Bill Is Scary
By Senator Tom Coburn -
I recently suggested that seniors will die sooner if Congress actually implements the Medicare cuts in the health-care bill put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. My colleagues who defend the bill—none of whom have practiced medicine—predictably dismissed my concern as a scare tactic. They are wrong. Every American, not just seniors, should know that the rationing provisions in the Reid bill will not only reduce their quality of life, but their life spans as well.
My 25 years as a practicing physician have shown me what happens when government attempts to practice medicine: Doctors respond to government coercion instead of patient cues, and patients die prematurely. Even if the public option is eliminated from the bill, these onerous rationing provisions will remain intact.
For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients' access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.
Section 6301 of the Reid bill creates new comparative effectiveness research (CER) programs. CER panels have been used as rationing commissions in other countries such as the U.K., where 15,000 cancer patients die prematurely every year according to the National Cancer Intelligence Network. CER panels here could effectively dictate coverage options and ration care for plans that participate in the state insurance exchanges created by the bill.
Additionally, the Reid bill depends on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in no fewer than 14 places. This task force was responsible for advising women under 50 to not undergo annual mammograms. The administration claims the task force recommendations do not carry the force of law, but the Reid bill itself contradicts them in section 2713. The bill explicitly states, on page 17, that health insurance plans "shall provide coverage for" services approved by the task force. This chilling provision represents the government stepping between doctors and patients. When the government asserts the power to provide care, it also asserts the power to deny care.
If the bill expands Medicaid eligibility to 133% of the poverty level, that too will lead to rationing. Because Washington bureaucrats have created a system that underpays doctors, 40% of doctors already restrict access to Medicaid patients, and therefore ration care.
Medicaid demonstrates, tragically in some cases, that access to a government program does not guarantee access to health care. In Maryland, 17,000 Medicaid patients are currently on a waiting list for medical services, and as many as 250 may have died while awaiting care, according to state auditors. Kansas, the home state of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, faces a Medicaid backlog of more than 15,000 applicants.
Other unintended consequences of the Reid bill could wreak havoc on patients' lives. What happens, for instance, when savvy consumers commanded to buy insurance realize the penalty is the de facto premium? It won't take long for younger, healthier Americans to realize it's cheaper to pay a $750 tax for coverage instead of, say, $5,000 in annual premiums when coverage can't be denied if you get sick.
OMB Budget Director Peter Orzsag's belief that mandatory health insurance will become a "cultural norm" is bureaucratic naivete that will produce skyrocketing premiums and reduced care for everyone. My state's own insurance commissioner, a Democrat, recently confirmed this concern to me in a letter noting that "the result will be higher insurance rates due to a higher percentage of insured being higher risk/expense individuals."
But the most fundamental flaw of the Reid bill is best captured by the story of one my patients I'll call Sheila. When Sheila came to me at the age of 33 with a lump in her breast, traditional tests like a mammogram under the standard of care indicated she had a cyst and nothing more. Because I knew her medical history, I wasn't convinced. I aspirated the cyst and discovered she had a highly malignant form of breast cancer. Sheila fought a heroic battle against breast cancer and enjoyed 12 good years with her family before succumbing to the disease.
If I had been practicing under the Reid bill, the government would have likely told me I couldn't have done the test that discovered Sheila's cancer because it wasn't approved under CER. Under the Reid bill, Sheila may have lived another year instead of 12, and her daughters would have missed a decade with their mom.
The bottom line is that under the Reid bill the majority of America's patients might be fine. But some will be like Sheila—patients whose lives hang in the balance and require the care of a doctor who understands the science and art of medicine, and can make decisions without government interference.
The American people are opposing this bill in greater numbers every day because the facts of the bill—not any tactic—are cause for serious concern.
Dr. Coburn, a physician, is a Republican senator from Oklahoma.
Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588842779569168.html
I recently suggested that seniors will die sooner if Congress actually implements the Medicare cuts in the health-care bill put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. My colleagues who defend the bill—none of whom have practiced medicine—predictably dismissed my concern as a scare tactic. They are wrong. Every American, not just seniors, should know that the rationing provisions in the Reid bill will not only reduce their quality of life, but their life spans as well.
My 25 years as a practicing physician have shown me what happens when government attempts to practice medicine: Doctors respond to government coercion instead of patient cues, and patients die prematurely. Even if the public option is eliminated from the bill, these onerous rationing provisions will remain intact.
For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients' access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.
Section 6301 of the Reid bill creates new comparative effectiveness research (CER) programs. CER panels have been used as rationing commissions in other countries such as the U.K., where 15,000 cancer patients die prematurely every year according to the National Cancer Intelligence Network. CER panels here could effectively dictate coverage options and ration care for plans that participate in the state insurance exchanges created by the bill.
Additionally, the Reid bill depends on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in no fewer than 14 places. This task force was responsible for advising women under 50 to not undergo annual mammograms. The administration claims the task force recommendations do not carry the force of law, but the Reid bill itself contradicts them in section 2713. The bill explicitly states, on page 17, that health insurance plans "shall provide coverage for" services approved by the task force. This chilling provision represents the government stepping between doctors and patients. When the government asserts the power to provide care, it also asserts the power to deny care.
If the bill expands Medicaid eligibility to 133% of the poverty level, that too will lead to rationing. Because Washington bureaucrats have created a system that underpays doctors, 40% of doctors already restrict access to Medicaid patients, and therefore ration care.
Medicaid demonstrates, tragically in some cases, that access to a government program does not guarantee access to health care. In Maryland, 17,000 Medicaid patients are currently on a waiting list for medical services, and as many as 250 may have died while awaiting care, according to state auditors. Kansas, the home state of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, faces a Medicaid backlog of more than 15,000 applicants.
Other unintended consequences of the Reid bill could wreak havoc on patients' lives. What happens, for instance, when savvy consumers commanded to buy insurance realize the penalty is the de facto premium? It won't take long for younger, healthier Americans to realize it's cheaper to pay a $750 tax for coverage instead of, say, $5,000 in annual premiums when coverage can't be denied if you get sick.
OMB Budget Director Peter Orzsag's belief that mandatory health insurance will become a "cultural norm" is bureaucratic naivete that will produce skyrocketing premiums and reduced care for everyone. My state's own insurance commissioner, a Democrat, recently confirmed this concern to me in a letter noting that "the result will be higher insurance rates due to a higher percentage of insured being higher risk/expense individuals."
But the most fundamental flaw of the Reid bill is best captured by the story of one my patients I'll call Sheila. When Sheila came to me at the age of 33 with a lump in her breast, traditional tests like a mammogram under the standard of care indicated she had a cyst and nothing more. Because I knew her medical history, I wasn't convinced. I aspirated the cyst and discovered she had a highly malignant form of breast cancer. Sheila fought a heroic battle against breast cancer and enjoyed 12 good years with her family before succumbing to the disease.
If I had been practicing under the Reid bill, the government would have likely told me I couldn't have done the test that discovered Sheila's cancer because it wasn't approved under CER. Under the Reid bill, Sheila may have lived another year instead of 12, and her daughters would have missed a decade with their mom.
The bottom line is that under the Reid bill the majority of America's patients might be fine. But some will be like Sheila—patients whose lives hang in the balance and require the care of a doctor who understands the science and art of medicine, and can make decisions without government interference.
The American people are opposing this bill in greater numbers every day because the facts of the bill—not any tactic—are cause for serious concern.
Dr. Coburn, a physician, is a Republican senator from Oklahoma.
Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588842779569168.html
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
