Delaware Outlaws Discrimination In Organ Transplantation

Recently, Delaware Governor John Carney signed into law a bill banning discrimination in organ transplantation based upon a person's disability. Thanks to Gov. Carney and the Delaware legislature, the state is now the 6th in the U.S. to outlaw such practices.

English: A collection of pictograms. Three of them used by the United States National Park Service. A package containing those three and all NPS symbols is available at the Open Icon Library (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I know from experience that there are a number of criteria by which a patient is evaluated in order to determine if a person is a suitable organ transplant candidate. This bill specifically prohibits a person's disability from being the reason they are denied transplant services and / or considered for transplant.

Rep. Debra Heffernan, the legislation's sponsor, said, "With this bill in place, families will have peace of mind and know that their loved one with a disability has the right to be treated fairly when they are undergoing the extremely taxing process of pursuing a life-saving transplant."

Governor Carney added, "A true measure of the commitment of government to the people is how well it addresses the needs of those who are living with disabilities. By signing this legislation into law, we are taking action to ensure individuals with disabilities have access to organ transplant procedures."

I agree with both of them wholeheartedly, and I implore Congress and President Trump to keep this non-discrimination theme in mind as they continue to work on the repeal and replace of ObamaCare.  The pre-existing conditions protection MUST be kept in place in whatever piece of legislation they ultimately agree on. Any discrimination to healthcare access is immoral and must be banned, because it ultimately leads to lives being needlessly lost.

I have 1 question in regards to Delaware's new legislation. Why do ONLY 6 states have such a law in place? Shame on the other 44 of you. Every state should have such a law on the books. I call upon the governors and legislators in the 44 states who have no such law to get to work and get it done.

Read More: DelawarePublic.org article - "Gov. Carney Signs Bill Banning Organ Transplant Discrimination" 

Pure Evil

Up until now, The Sheepdog's been pretty silent regarding the 2016 presidential race, and there's two reasons for that:

1. I'm sick of politics. It just keeps getting uglier and uglier. The Republicans and the Democrats are basically the same - they're in it for themselves, not to serve, and are more interested in what's good for their party instead of what's good for the country. It's why I left the GOP back in 2010. The current GOP disgusts me as much as the Democrats.
2. Plus, all the candidates, from the more than a dozen so-called Republicans that started the race, to the few Democrats, to the current third party candidates, totally suck. As my friend, The Colonel used to say, "There ain't a statesman in the bunch". Not one. You disagree? Then, let's review some of them.

The so-called "Republicans":

• Bush III - really? Another one? I can already hear the Democrats if he had won the GOP nomination, "It'll be 4 more years of the same failed policies of the past."
• The anchor baby (Rubio).
• The birther (Cruz) - I still don't understand how the GOP supported this guy after raising so much cain about Obama's birth certificate. Cruz was born in Canada. Total hypocrites.
• The Billionaire, Brattish Bully (Trump)
• George Soro's boy (Kasich).
• Chris Christie - pro-homosexual marriage and governor of one of the most anti-gun states in the country.
• Lindsey Graham - not the sharpest tack in the box and the 2016 version of John McCain.

The Democrats:

• The Progressive Extremist, and
• the Socialist.

Really? Is this the best we can do as a country?

English: Khusruwiyah Mosque in Aleppo, Syria Français : Mosquée Khosrowiyé à Alep en Syrie (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And then, of course, there's the third party candidates led by Gary Johnson. You remember him, right? He wants to be Commander in Chief and institute his foreign policies, but he doesn't know where Aleppo, Syria is, the center of the Syrian refugee crisis caused by that country's civil war. Additionally, Johnson is supposedly conservative, but yet he is "pro-choice" for abortion and wants to legalize marijuana. Neither of those stances equate to conservative principles and values. He should actually be a Democrat.

Since all the candidates suck like a Hoover vacuum, who should Americans vote for? Since a third party candidate has as much chance at winning the election as a Volkswagen Beetle does at winning the Daytona 500, and both major party nominees have more baggage than a Boeing 747 headed for Europe, it's a tough choice. That is until you are aware of the information I am sharing below. It's shocking and no one is talking about it.

In fact, what I will share the remainder of this post, regarding this presidential election, is far more important than the economy, foreign policy, gun control, jobs, and even abortion. I doubt you will see this information anywhere else, but in my opinion, it's the #1 issue to consider before casting your vote for the presidency.

Back in 2009, Hillary Clinton proudly went on record as someone who "enormously" admires Margaret Sanger (click here for video). Now, who the heck is Margaret Sanger? She was a well-known proponent of eugenics after World War I. In simple terms, eugenics is the idea that some people's lives are more valuable than others. It teaches that people with "undesirable" traits should not be allowed to reproduce and pass their "undesirable" traits to their offspring. Eugenicists desire to reduce or totally eliminate such traits from the human gene pool and are not opposed to eliminating living humans possessing these "undesirable" traits. These traits include:

1. physical disabilities,
2. mental disabilities, 
3. chronic health issues a.k.a. pre-existing conditions,
4. being poor, 
5. being an immigrant, and
6. being a members of a racial or ethnic minority.

Eugenicists consider "undesirables" as "unfit", as in unfit to live, and a waste of oxygen and / or other resources. On the other hand, eugenicists believe people with "good stock", not having one or more of the traits listed above, should be encouraged to have many children. In other words they want to build "a master race." Anyone see a problem here besides me? Eugenics is a dangerous philosophy and has it's pitfalls, such as:

A major criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether "negative" or "positive" policies are used, they are vulnerable to abuse because the criteria of selection are determined by whichever group is in political power. Furthermore, negative eugenics in particular is considered by many to be a violation of basic human rights, which include the right to reproduction. Another criticism is that eugenic policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, resulting in inbreeding depression instead due to a low genetic variation. - Wikipedia

Does any of this sound familiar? Think back to the 1930s and '40s and Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, and the Jews. The Nazis were huge proponents of eugenics which led to millions of Jews being slaughtered during World War II. The Jews were considered "undesirable", so Hitler wanted them annihilated in order to establish a master race. He might have accomplished his goal, too, if he had not been greedy, arrogant, and power hungry in deciding to go to war with the Russians, while at the same time fighting The Allies. Heck, I even read somewhere that Hitler himself admired Margaret Sanger.

English: Margaret Sanger Square is the leafy intersection of Mott St. and Bleecker St. in New York City's Greenwich Village. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Take a few minutes and Google Sanger's name. You will find that she is also the founder of Planned Parenthood. You will also find some of the things she said and  / or wrote revealing her racist ideologies and attitudes regarding African-Americans and others. She even conspired with pastors in black communities in order to get them to encourage their members to use more birth control. Her motivation was to reduce the numbers of African-Americans. She was also one of the early promoters of abortion and even spoke at women's chapters of the Ku Klux Klan (read here). So, considering all this, could it be that the original intention of abortion was not about women's freedom to choose to end unwanted pregnancies, nor the freedom to do what they want with their bodies, but it was instead rooted in bigotry and racism as a means of reducing the African-American population and others considered to be "undesirable"?

Eugenics is PURE EVIL. The Nazis proved that. It amounts to humans, sinful, fallen humans, playing God. I could provide link after link in this post showing the connection between eugenics, Margaret Sanger, racism, and other evil, but the post would run on forever. So, I encourage you to take the time and educate yourself. Get on the web, Google Sanger, eugenics, eugenicists, and do your own research. You will be shocked. You probably never knew that such evil thought processes existed in this world except in movies and TV dramas.

Typically, when someone admires another person, it is because they have something in common with them. Many times it's a shared value, principle, ideology, or goal. Since Hillary Clinton is on record as saying she admires a racist woman whose life work was in eugenics, doesn't it also stand to reason that Hillary Clinton very well may hold the same, evil views as Sanger? To me, that's the scary part of thinking about her being president.

So, what might things be like in the U.S. if a Hillary Clinton presidency were to be influenced by the values of her "hero", Sanger? In addition to the traits previously listed as "undesirable", and thinking about the above quote containing the potential problems with eugenics, consider the following:

• We already know she hates guns. In fact, some Democrats have wanted them all banned for a long time. The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" and the Brady Bill, which became law during Bill's presidency, are direct evidence of that. Would gun owners become "undesirables"?
• She's previously expressed her contempt for Christians and their beliefs. Would Christians, and perhaps Jews, and other people of faith, also become "undesirables"?
• She's has contempt for the so-called "vast right wing conspiracy" and conservatives, because she thinks they're out to get her and Bill. Would they, or the Clintons' other political enemies, or people who disagree, with them become "undesirables"?
• Remember the section in The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare, regarding "end of life care"? Remember how Sarah Palin and others raised concerns about that? That section of the law is so broad that it could be interpreted to mean many things. What if that section was determined to mean that people who are elderly, have chronic health conditions, or some type of disability, whose care is too expensive, should not be given medical treatment but instead just be left alone to die because they're "undesirables"? That would be a eugenicist's utopia, and ObamaCare was basically HillaryCare once upon a time. Could it get any more barbaric than that? God help us.

Now, I'm sure someone reading this post is gonna object to this line of reasoning. They'll say something like just because Hillary admires a woman who was big into eugenics doesn't mean she shares those same ideas, or, that The Sheepdog's nuts and none of this will ever happen. Well, then consider this - do you remember the adjective Hillary used to describe Donald Trump's supporters? She referred to them as "deplorable". Sounds pretty similar to "undesirables" to me, but there's more to consider in making my point than that. Please, read on.

Hillary Clinton in Hampton, NH (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I've read reports telling of an incident, involving Hillary, which took place at the Arkansas governor's mansion during Bill's gubernatorialship. An Easter egg hunt for special needs children was held. She became frustrated and upset with the youngsters, because they were finding the eggs at a much slower pace than she would have liked. So, she popped off saying, "When are they going to get these f---ing ree-tards out of here?!? You can read more about the incident here. Additionally, within the same article, she is quoted as referring to Jews as "kikes" and one Jewish man in particular as a "f***ing Jew bastard". Plus, her temper and fits of rage over the years, culminating in furniture and other items being broken in the Arkansas governor's mansion, and the White House, have been reported in various media. So, in my opinion, if you mix her temper tantrums, with her racist remarks, and her love for a eugenicist, we have a major problem. These are not the qualities we need in the White House. It's a recipe for a disaster.

Hillary made her admiration for Margaret Sanger known about 7 years ago at a Planned Parenthood awards ceremony. Others have been influenced by evil people before and later recanted their admiration for their mentor as a mistake. Hillary has had plenty of time to do the same, but yet she never has. Therefore, it only stands to reason that she still admires Sanger and her ideals. At a time when race relations are tense in this country and people are held accountable and even ostracized for bigoted behavior and words, why has Hillary Clinton not been held accountable for her allegiance to Sanger?

Another thing to consider before voting is that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will likely have the opportunity to nominate more than one justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Does it not stand to reason that anyone she nominates for the highest court in the land will likely hold the same influences, values, principles, or lack thereof (depending on how you look at it), that she does? Do you remember what United States Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee said when he was criticized for his vote confirming Sonia Sotomayor as one of Obama's Supreme Court nominees? He said, "Elections have consequences" (read here). In other words, he took the viewpoint that since Obama won the presidency, he could appoint whomever he wanted and get a free pass in doing so. What if a majority of Congress takes that same attitude during a Hillary Clinton presidency? Consider for a moment the ramifications? We cannot as freedom-loving, decent people allow her that opportunity and give her the power that comes with the presidency. We CANNOT do it.

The answer to the question of which presidential candidate to vote for is a hard one to swallow, especially for a conservative like me. Even with all his baggage, such as insulting people, being rude and crude, arrogant, and a bully, we must elect Donald Trump as president. There is no other way to stop Hillary Clinton from having absolute power and potentially setting up her own "Evil Empire". "But Sheepdog, Congress and the Supreme Court will limit her power through our system of constitutional checks and balances?" Really? Where have you been the last 8 years and the last few years of W's administration? Congress and the Supreme Court have set on their "assets" and allowed Obama to run wild. Heck, the Supreme Court even ruled that ObamaCare is constitutional!! Yet the power to regulate healthcare is mentioned NOWHERE in the constitution. NOWHERE. So, what makes you think those lazy bums will do anything to limit a President Hillary's power?

Now, look back over this post and review who a eugenicist, like "Hillary's Hero", would consider "unfit" or "undesirable" or a "weed". Now, is that you, or one of your loved ones? Is that your spouse, your child, your boyfriend / girlfriend, your parent, your best friend, or someone you care about? If it is, then you have ONLY one choice in this election - Donald Trump. If you stay home and don't vote, or vote for a third party candidate instead of Donald Trump, then you will be helping Hillary Clinton, an evil woman, gain absolute authority over you and the country. It's the equivalent of a chicken voting for a fox AND leaving the door to the chicken coop unlocked and standing open.

If Trump were running against anyone else, it's likely that myself and many others would not vote for him. So, here's what it boils down to for me. Donald Trump has said and done a lot of unacceptable stuff. However, I'm not aware of him even once expressing his admiration for someone like the evil, racist, eugenicist Margaret Sanger who was also admired by Adolf Hitler. Hillary has, and she's proud of it.

Now, this article should not be interpreted as my prediction that the potential scenario I've painted will definitely happen with Hillary as president. If I could predict the future that accurately, I would have already won the PowerBall multiple times. All I'm saying is that when you put all this information together, including Hillary's fits of anger, her bigoted comments, and her admiration for a racist eugenicist, it adds up to it being too risky to give her the power of the presidency.  I'm not willing to take that risk. Are you?

So, with early voting already starting around the country, The Sheepdog is endorsing, and will be voting for, Donald Trump. I do it for one reason and one reason only - to defeat Hillary Clinton and prevent her rise to power. I want to encourage everyone to do the same. Please do not stay home and not vote. Please do not vote for a third party candidate. If you do either of these things, you will be helping The Mother of All Wolves rise to power and risking her finishing Obama's "fundamental transformation" of this country.

The Sheepdog don't like wolves, and Hillary Clinton is the epitome of a wolf. Grrrrr.....

P.S. I'm sure this post has pissed off many people. However, that was not my intention. In fact, I hope in goes viral, so please share it. I am simply a patriot and am concerned that a Hillary Clinton presidency will be a disaster. America will NOT survive it. Therefore, she must be defeated at the ballot box. Therefore, I wrote this out of love for my country and am not concerned with losing, keeping, or making friends as a result of it. It had to be said, and no one else is saying it. Too much is at stake. I'm sure some will want to leave comments, which I welcome. If you do, you MUST follow my blog policy for comments (click here to read). I had the balls to put my name on what will be considered a controversial post. So, if you don't have the "cojones" to put your name on a comment, or you fill it with profanity, it will NOT be posted.

P.P.S. If I disappear from the blogosphere after this post, it's safe to assume that either "they" got me or Google and Blogger shut the blog down. Just know I fought the good fight and did what I could to save my country from a potentially Evil Empire. 

Super Bowl Champs, Tax Dollars, and ObamaCare

As if a Steelers fan needed another reason to hate the Baltimore Ravens, this Steelers fan and staunch conservative just found one. I'll call it reason number 47-2008 in "honor" of the Ravens latest Super Bowl victory (47) and Obama's initial win (2008) of the White House.

Baltimore Ravens logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I learned a few days ago that the Baltimore "Black Birds," as I like to call them, have received $130,000 in tax payer funds from their home state of Maryland to promote ObamaCare. The "Black Birds" will apparently use the funds to promote ObamaCare on their website and through other media.

Personally, I think its inappropriate at best and a disgrace at worst. It's ridiculous for a professional sports team to get paid government money to push propaganda. NFL teams and their owners make millions every year from TV contracts, ticket sales, advertising and promotional deals, concessions, parking, and team paraphernalia. Many NFL teams have had multi-million dollar stadiums built for them at taxpayer expense. The state of Maryland paying the Baltimore "Black Birds" to promote ObamaCare is a ridiculous waste of money. I hope the tax payers of Maryland hold their governor and state legislature accountable at election time.

I've objected before to politics infiltrating movies, music, and football (Bob Costas, I'm talking to you), and I'm objecting again. The leftist infiltration is ruining entertainment. I sure hope it doesn't ruin football, too. When I turn on a football game, I want a football game - not politics, whether Left or Right, and especially not ObamaCare propaganda.

When I first saw this story in my daily e-mail from Glenn Beck's TheBlaze.com the other day, it aggravated me, made me dislike the "Black Birds" even more, and caused me to enjoy this past Sunday's 19-16 Steelers victory over the Baltimore "Black Birds" just a little bit more.

Go Steelers!! The Ravens suck!!

Source - TheBlaze.com article titled "New Documents Reveal This NFL Team Was Paid $130K to Promote Obamacare" 

Related articles

• Taxpayer Money Used to Bribe Baltimore Ravens to Promote ObamaCare (moonbattery.com)
• NFL Team Paid for Propaganda: Baltimore Ravens Shill ObamaCare for Taxpayer Dollars (ijreview.com)
• Baltimore Ravens Get $130,000 of Taxpayer Funding to Promote ObamaCare (grumpyelder.com)
• Super Bowl Champ Baltimore Ravens Getting Paid $130,000 to Promote Obamacare (+video) (joemiller.us)

Here Comes the Judge - Part 1

By now, most of us have heard Sarah Murnaghan's story. She is the 10-year-old girl from Pennsylvania who received national attention when her parents filed a lawsuit in order to get her a double-lung transplant. Suffering from the horrible disease of cystic fibrosis, Sarah was running out of time quickly and her only hope for survival was a lung transplant, which she received and is now recovering from.

Sarah's story is one I've been following since it began developing in early summer / late spring. It is also a story that as an organ transplant recipient, I felt compelled to weigh in on at some point. However, I chose to wait awhile in order to see how the story progressed. Yesterday was the 6 1/2 year anniversary of my heart transplant. Today, I give my 2 cents .... or, whatever it's worth.

Heart and Lungs (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In case any of my readers are unfamiliar with Sarah's story, I lay it out below.

As I mentioned, Sarah is a 10-year-old girl who suffered from cystic fibrosis. She was deathly ill and had been on the transplant list for an extended period of time. I think I saw somewhere that it was 18 months. One reason her wait was so lengthy is because she is under 12.

Through the years, UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) and OPTN (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) along with other medical and transplant experts have studied, researched, and compiled data in order to put rules, regulations, and procedures in place to administer and regulate the U.S.'s transplant system. One of the goals of that system is to be fair to all and help transplant recipients have the best outcomes.

One of those rules is that a person under 12 years of age is placed on the pediatric lung transplant waiting list in order to receive lungs from a child. If a person is 12 or more, they qualify for the adult lung transplant waiting list. The main reason for the different lists is because size matters. Adult lungs are generally too large for a child. Being on the adult transplant list might have shortened Sarah's wait, since adult lungs become available more often than pediatric ones, but there are no guarantees. The problem for her was that pediatric lung transplants are rare, because donor lungs from a child seldom become available.

Sarah was running out of time, so an appeal was made to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to make an exception for Sarah and place her on the adult lung transplant waiting list to improve her chances of getting a set of lungs. Sebelius wanted to help and even acknowledged that the rules concerning pediatric and adult lung transplants should be reviewed and given further study. However, she said it was not her place to alter the current rules and make an exception for one individual.

Sarah's parents then sued claiming that their daughter was being discriminated against because of her age. They wanted a judge to order Sebelius to place Sarah on the adult lung transplant list. The judge hearing the case agreed with them, and on June 12th, Sarah had a lung transplant. However, the story does not end there.

Shortly after the transplant, Sarah's new lungs failed. It's not an uncommon occurrence. It happens in as many as 25% of lung transplants. Then, on June 15th, another set of lungs became available, so Sarah had another lung transplant. The only problem was that the donor of those lungs had pneumonia, which brought a whole new set of problems into the mix. However, her parents chose to accept them, because Sarah would die otherwise.

English: A very prominent pneumonia of the middle lobe of the right lung. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After the second transplant, Sarah's problems did not cease. Besides the battle with the pneumonia, she would need another surgery to repair a partially paralyzed diaphragm. As someone who has had pneumonia once, I cannot imagine the suffering Sarah has gone through. First, two lung transplants. Then, pneumonia coupled with a malfunctioning diaphragm. It's hard enough to breathe with just pneumonia working against you, but with a bad diaphragm, also, while recovering from a double-lung transplant - it sounds horrible.

Sarah's story has sparked national debate about the whole donated organ process, as it should. The controversy coupled with all the raw emotion the debate has brought with it is the main reason I've held off weighing in until now. But as I said, as a heart transplant recipient, I feel I must. I've been in Sarah's shoes. My family has been in Sarah's family's shoes. It is not a good place to be, and it's why I continue to advocate for more Americans to register as organ and tissue donors every chance I get.

Before I get too far into "my 2 cents," let me say two things. First, I think Sarah's parents did the same thing any parent would in those circumstances - fight for their child and do whatever it takes to help them. Sarah's their baby. They love her and would do anything to protect her, just like any other parent. They did what they had to do, and I don't think anyone can blame them for that.

Second, I am happy for Sarah. To her, I say welcome to the "Transplant Recipient Club." I would also say to her that she should not expect the journey to always be easy. There will be bumps in the road. However, every extra minute spent with her family and doing the things she loves will be worth it. Trust me. I have over 2300 days of experience under my belt. Those days are priceless.

All that being said, this story makes me a little uneasy and concerns me greatly. It goes down a slippery slope and opens a can of worms that I'm not sure we as Americans really want open. I see "DANGER AHEAD" signs flashing for a number of reasons.

First, I do not think a federal judge should have stepped in, overruled the rules for one individual, and "forced" Sarah onto the adult transplant list. The age rules set forth years ago regarding the lung transplant waiting list were put in place after years of research, study, and analyzing the outcomes of both adult and pediatric lung transplants. These rules were put in place by transplant medical experts in order to assure that the sickest patients had the best possible outcomes per transplant. They should not have been overruled on the emotional whim of a judge. It was an overstep. Rules are put in place for a reason - to prevent chaos and ensure that everyone is treated fairly.

Official portrait of United States Health and Human Services Secretary . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While I am not a big fan of Secretary Sebelius, I would like to commend her in this situation. She followed the rules and was not willing to change them without further research, data, and a discussion with the medical professionals who put the rules in place to begin with. At a time when the Obama Administration seems to break or change the rules daily, it is nice to see her following them in this case. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Second, the judge's ruling sets a dangerous, dangerous precedent. When I heard of the decision. my first thought was, "I wonder how long it will be before another child's parents do the exact same thing?" Sure enough - I was right. I heard just a few days later of another such case where a judge overruled the transplant guidelines. Welcome to chaos.

Third, my opposition to ObamaCare is no secret. I have preached against it now for what seems like an eternity. While Sarah's case has absolutely nothing to do with ObamaCare, it shares something with that piece-of-crap legislation - bureaucrats making healthcare decisions instead of medical professionals. The federal judge's ruling in this case opens the transplant process up to corruption.

For instance, let's say, hypothetically, that a federal judge's golfing buddy is in need of a life-saving liver transplant. Let's say you need one, too, are sicker than him, just days away from death, and at the top of the list. You get the call that a liver is available for you. Unbeknownst to you, that liver is a match for both of you. You've followed all the rules and are first in line. It's yours. Then, all of a sudden, the judge's golfing buddy's wife files a lawsuit in order to get the golf buddy that liver instead of you. The case just happens to come before this judge. Think the judge will recuse himself? Are you sure?

Let's say the judge does not recuse himself and rules in favor of giving the golf buddy that liver you should have had. How would you feel? Is that fair? What if that liver was the only opportunity you would get at a transplant, you don't get it, and die? Don't think it could happen? Why not? The judge that ruled in favor of Sarah Murnaghan set the precedent for it. Precedence is a dangerous thing. Such a ruling leads to chaos and a lack of faith in the system. The scariest thing to me as a heart recipient is that I could see it having a negative effect on getting people to register as donors. Why would they if integrity is removed from the system through judges bending the rules on a whim? Scary ... just scary. It could cost people their lives.

Fourth, the one thing that hasn't been discussed in this whole situation is the fact that it's likely that by the judge placing Sarah on the adult lung transplant list, and her receiving two sets of adult lungs, two adults on the adult list, who had played by the rules, didn't get the life-saving lung transplants they desperately needed. What if they died because of it? Was that fair? It's a very serious, potential reality that should not be overlooked.

I hope no one reads this post and thinks I've got a problem with this little girl and her parents, because I do not. I do not blame any of them at all for doing whatever it took to save Sarah's life. They didn't do anything anyone else wouldn't have done in the same situation. The only person I find fault with in this situation is the federal judge who overstepped and made a decision that should have been reserved for the medical community. In my opinion, the ruling is scary and puts the entire field of medicine in jeopardy, not just transplant. A judge's job is to ensure that "the law," or the rules in this instance, are followed and applied to each person equally. This judge did not do that.

Here's something to think about. Do you know what the root cause is as of why we are even having this debate? It's not parents fighting for their daughter's life. It's not because of an improper decision by a judge. All of those things were set in motion by the fact that too few Americans have chosen to be organ and tissue donors. Whether we want to admit it or not, the lack of donated organs has led to a form of rationing. If every American would register as an organ and tissue donor, we would not have any "Sarah Murnaghan Stories" and lobbying and filing lawsuits to get so-and-so's loved one a transplant.

Today, August 22, 2013, about 19 Americans, out of the 119,000 on the transplant waiting list, will die a needless death due to a lack of organ donors. Those Americans have spouses, children, golfing buddies, and other people close to them who will mourn their passing and miss them terribly. The big thing we should all learn from the Sarah Murnaghan story is that the lack of organ donors in this country is an ... "epidemic." And yes, I used the "e-word," because, in my opinion, it's that serious.

The good news is that this epidemic has a simple cure. If all of us will register as organ and tissue donors, the shortage of donated organs will end immediately. The epidemic of 19 American men, women, and children dying every single day while waiting on a transplant would be history. The solution is so, so simple. Registering as an organ and tissue donor doesn't cost you anything and only takes a few minutes of your time. Isn't a few minutes of your time a worthwhile investment if it means someone might live ?

Please help by being part of the solution. Register as an organ and tissue donor today by clicking here. Show that you care about your fellow Americans by REGISTERING NOW.

P.S. Next week, in Part 2, I'll share another story of a transplant-related legal battle. This one is truly sad.

Similar articles :

• FayObserver.com - Op-Ed : Festle - Child's Organ Donation Case Sets Troubling Precedent 
• HotAir.com - The Politics of Organ Transplants 
• PhillyBurbs.com - http://wExploiting A Medical Crisis for a Self-Serving Political Agenda

Related articles :

• Transplant girl could leave hospital soon (cnn.com)
• Sarah Murnaghan Turns 11 After Double-Lung Transplant (abcnews.go.com)
• Desperate for transplant, she's still glad Pa. girl got lungs (nbcnews.com)
• Lung-transplant survivor faces more issues (goerie.com)
• Transplant girl could leave hospital soon (cnn.com)

Elephants, Donkeys, and "Death Panels"

I vividly remember, and I'm sure many of you do, too, the insanely intense debate about ObamaCare that went on prior to it becoming law. The Sheepdog and many others, more knowledgeable than I, barked very loudly in opposition to the legislation. We did so for a number of reasons, which included :

1. Despite the claims of the legislation's supporters, we did not believe ObamaCare would control rising healthcare costs. It was our opinion that it would actually accelerate them.

   

   Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in Dover, NH. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

2. We felt that once the costs of ObamaCare went out of control, it would lead to the rationing of healthcare. The legislation's supporters said, "Naw - that's crazy talk."
3. A number of experts, along with Sarah Palin and other political figures, claimed that the legislation would lead to so-called "death panels." This idea came from the provision within the bill that established a bureaucracy known as the "Independent Payment Advisory Board" (IPAB). After I read the legislation through, it appeared to me they were correct.

Now, what is this "death panel" thing ? Basically, it is the IPAB and its authority, granted by the legislation, to either approve or disapprove medical procedures, coverage, and payments for such to medical providers. The members of the IPAB could conceivably choose not to cover or pay for a person's medical care as they saw fit due to cost or other reasons. This could include necessary surgery, prescriptions, and other things. In the event a life-saving surgery or procedure is necessary, if the IPAD refused to cover it, and the patient doesn't have the surgery / procedure, the patient will, of course, die. Thereby, the term "death panel." As a transplant recipient, I felt at the time, and still do, that transplants would be the first thing axed, because they are so expensive.

Sarah Palin was one of the ones who vehemently cried out and warned about the "death panels." She was vilified, smeared, called an idiot, and threatened for it. Her claims were referred to as "the biggest lie of the year." Palin's warnings led to Obama going on record and saying "there are no so-called death panels." He even referred to Palin's claims as "Phony."

Death Panels (Photo credit: Renegade98)

Now, the former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, has written an editorial for the Wall Street Journal titled "The Affordable Care Act's Rate Setting Won't Work" which validates the claims of Palin, myself, and many others. I am gonna break out a few of the highlights below, but I encourage you to click here and read the entire editorial, also. As Glenn Beck would say, "do your own homework."

Being a "good Democrat," the first thing Dean does in his editorial is criticize Republicans' continuing effort to stop ObamaCare as "willfully destructive." What do you expect, right ? Personally, I don't think the Republicans have got a clue on how fix the healthcare problems in this country anymore than the Democrats do, but I've already beaten that horse to death, so I'll let it lie.

After taking his shot at the GOP in the editorial, Dean says :

1. "One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them."
2. The IPAB will not be able to control healthcare costs, because its increased bureacracy will drive up administrative costs, and therefore overall healthcare costs.
3. Both patients and medical providers will be left frustrated.

Photo credit : John P. Hoke via Wikipedia.

Aren't these the exact same problems with ObamaCare that myself and others pointed out from the get go ? Aren't these the exact some issues for which Sarah Palin was vilified for pointing out ? Now, we have a top Democrat and former Chairman of the DNC basically agreeing with Conservatives ... and Sarah Palin. Hmmm. Interesting. Oh, oh, oh ... and before I forget - did I mention that Dean is a DOCTOR ? In my opinion, that makes his assessment of ObamaCare much more credible than the Community Organizer in Chief's.

Dean's editorial leaves us with a top Democrat agreeing, at least in part, with Palin, other Republicans, myself, other Conservatives, and other anti-ObamaCare Americans. One can make the argument that Dean's editorial shows that the claim that so-called "death panels" were "the biggest lie of the year" is in of itself ... a lie.

So, who's the "phony" now ?

Related articles

• Howard Dean: Sarah Palin was right about death panels! Yeaarrggh! (twitchy.com)
• Howard Dean Op-Ed Supports Sarah Palin's ObamaCare Death Panels Claim (foxnewsinsider.com)
• For Agreeing with Palin, Will Howard Dean Win Politifact's 'Lie of the Year' (breitbart.com)
• Must Read on Obamacare, Death Panels, and Who's Now In Agreement (sarahpalinblog.typepad.com)
• Howard Dean: Please Fund Obamacare, Even Though It Can't Work (breitbart.com)
• RANT: ObamaCare "death panels" (reinkefaceslife.com)

Is Tenneseee's Proposed "Fairness in Ticketing Act" Really Fair ?

Back in December, I wrote a blog article about a proposed law working it's way through the Tennessee Legislature. The article was titled "A Season of Miracles" (read it here). At the time, the article's purpose was two fold. First, it contained some of my usual sarcasm in order to provide a few laughs. Second, after first learning about the bill while reading a local newspaper, I felt it was worth making others aware of it, too. More recently, I've looked into the bill even further and found that the issue is worth visiting again in more detail.

Tennessee Capitol Building at night

The bill is known as the "Fairness in Ticketing Act." Supporters of the bill claim it will curb scalping. Opponents of the bill claim it will infringe on the property rights of consumers by making it more difficult, if not impossible, to transfer legally owned sporting event and concert tickets to family members or friends. Who's right ? I'll tell you in this article.

I am a firm believer in President Reagan's mantra of "trust but verify." So, after reading various press releases, blog posts, Facebook pages, and websites applicable to the issue, I decided to go to the Tennessee Legislature's website and read the actual text of the bill. I felt like I needed to determine for myself what the bill actually did and which side was telling the truth. I want to encourage all Tennesseans who buy tickets to sporting events, concerts, etc. to do the same. A summary of the bill can be read by clicking here, and the entire text of the bill can be read by clicking here.

When I read through the entire text of the bill the first time, it reminded me of the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. ObamaCare law because of how ambiguous and complex it is. Fortunately, the bill is only about ten pages long, because I had to read it multiple times to really make any sense of it. My first impression was that it was nothing more than a progressive, big government regulatory bill, because it will require so-called ticket brokers, better known as scalpers, to register with the state of Tennessee, pay a fee (the Progressive term for "tax"), and basically get a permit to scalp tickets. I did not see the threat to regular everyday consumers, until I had read the bill a few more times and let the words sink in. I ultimately found that, like ObamaCare, the dangers with the bill are not what the legislation is saying, the devil is in what it's not saying.

There are a number of consumer-related problems within this bill. For instance, consider Section 62-45-107(2) which states :

To preserve the rights of consumers to secure tickets to entertainment events through safe and reliable means and to protect freedom of enterprise, nothing in this chapter shall prevent operators of places of entertainment, event presenters or their agents from utilizing any ticketing methods for the initial sale of tickets, through any medium, whether existing now or in the future (emphasis added).

Sounds good overall, right ? The Legislature is looking out for Tennesseans, right ? Well, hang on for a minute and let me point out what the bill says a "ticket" is. Section 62-45-103(23) of the bill states the following :

Ticket means a printed, electronic or other type of evidence of the right, option or opportunity to occupy space at or to enter or attend an entertainment event even if not evidenced by any physical manifestation of such right (emphasis added).

Now, if you're like I was when I first read these two sections of the bill, you're probably thinking, "O.k. Sheepdog. I must've missed something, 'cause I really don't see a problem here." That's exactly the problem with not only these two quoted sections but the rest of the bill as well. It's vague, open-ended, and open to interpretation.

Currently, there is a movement to go "paperless" with most event tickets. This legislation would likely accelerate that push. So then, what would we consumers use as a "ticket" to get into a ballgame or concert if it's paperless ? What type of "medium" would it be ?

Nashville Predators (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One "medium" that might be used as a paperless "Ticket" is the credit card the ticket was purchased with. For example, let's say you buy tickets from someone, such as TicketMaster, to go watch the Nashville Predators play. You'd pay for the tickets with your credit card, then when you get to the arena for the game, you would swipe your credit card and show some form of i.d. to gain entry. Your "tickets" would be linked to your credit card. The main problem for consumers would then be if you wanted to transfer a ticket to someone else. For example, let's say you bought the tickets for someone else as a gift, or at the last minute had a scheduling conflict and couldn't make the game. Currently, you would just give the paper ticket, or maybe sell it, to someone else to go in your place. Guess what ? That ain't happening with a paperless ticket. The transfer, if even possible, will be much more difficult and potentially a real headache.

It's likely, however, that the ticket seller you bought the tickets from would be willing to help you transfer them, or perhaps refer you to an associated company who could provide that "service." In the case of a Predators ticket, currently their tickets are sold by TicketMaster. However, if, as in the example above, the tickets are paperless and linked to your credit card, you would likely only be able to transfer the tickets through TicketMonopoly .... oops, I mean TicketMaster or one of their "associates." Here's another question ? Do you think they will let you do that for free ? Of course not - just like with the airlines, everything, especially changes, costs money. No free lunch here.

Let's talk about TicketMaster for a minute. They are reportedly major supporters of this bill. I hate those guys. It's nearly impossible to buy a sporting event or concert ticket without going through them. That's why I refer to them as "TicketMonopoly." Plus, sometimes the so-called "service fee" they attach to each ticket can be nearly as much as the ticket itself. They've got a real lucrative racket going.

Image via CrunchBase

Remember my example above about the process involved if you wanted to transfer a ticket if this bill passes and tickets go paperless ? Here's something else you may or may not know about TicketMaster. They already own a "ticket broker" company called TicketsNow. TicketsNow is part of the secondary ticket market putting owners of previously purchased tickets with prospective buyers. TicketsNow basically does the same type of thing that the individual "ticket brokers," or scalpers, you see walking around on the streets and sidewalks holding up handfuls of tickets outside sporting events and concerts are doing. TicketsNow and their competitors, such as StubHub, just do it on a much larger scale. Now, can you guess who TicketMaster might use to provide the "transfer service" on those tickets you want to transfer ? C'mon guess. Ding, ding, ding. I think you're right. I'm betting it would be TicketsNow, too. Amazing isn't it ?

Back to those Preds tickets you bought. Let's say you bought those to take your family to a Preds game. This bill is law. One week before the game, something comes up and you and your family of four can't go to the game. You contact TicketMaster to transfer the tickets to a buddy and his family. TicketMaster directs you to TicketsNow who then charges you a fee to do the transfer. TicketMaster has just made money on both the original ticket purchase and the transfer. They've basically double-dipped. I'd also be willing to bet that TicketsNow would not only charge you a transfer fee but also another "service charge" like you paid on the original purchase. You getting pissed, yet ? Well, you ought to be, because you just got ripped off. If this bill passes, be sure to write the General Assembly and thank them for allowing it to happen.

Tennessee State Sen. Ken Yager

Personally, I believe the scalping problem is one that is easily fixed with a solution that is already in place - it's called the "free market." However, apparently the bill's sponsors, Sen. Ken Yager and Rep. Ryan Haynes, other members of the General Assembly, and the bill's supporters do not. They think "the gubmint" needs to step in and fix the scalping problem. They even said as much in Section 62-45-102(5) which states :

The general assembly must act to ensure a free market for tickets whereby consumers know what they are buying, artists and teams have the ability to ensure that fans have access to great seats at fair prices, and deceptive, anonymous resale and deceptive internet marketing practices are prohibited (emphasis added).

Tennessee State Rep. Ryan Haynes

They think they must protect us. Really ? I, for one, am sick and tired of the big government loving, progressives thinking they have to step in and fix everything. I also like the way they bring up the "free market" when it suits their purpose, but then quickly forget about it later when it doesn't. By the way - did I mention that both Sen. Yager and Rep. Haynes are Republicans ? Well, they are, proving once again that the GOP is not immune to the plague of progressivism, but I digress.

Personally, I think the main reason for this bill, besides enlarging TicketMaster's monopoly even more, is because is gives "the gubmit" more control. The bill will force every "ticket broker" to register with the state, pay a fee a.k.a. tax, and basically get a state issued permit to resale tickets. However, just like with ObamaCare, there is an exemption in the law regarding the resale of tickets. Can you guess who qualifies for it ? Ding, ding, ding. Man, you guys are good - you got it right again. It's TicketMaster.

Before I forget it, let me get back to the TicketMaster / TicketsNow relationship for a minute. Back in 2009, these two found themselves in the middle of an alleged scandal. It came about when some folks attempted to purchase tickets from TicketMaster's website to a Bruce Springsteen concert, but were re-directed to the TicketsNow website. There, these people found that the same tickets they tried to purchase from TicketMaster were being sold at "a premium price." Someone correct me if I am wrong, but that sounds like "scalping" to me. What about you ? Some alleged that TicketMaster did it intentionally, too. TicketMaster's defense was that it "was a glitch."

So .... let me get this straight - the General Assembly, with the support of TicketMaster, tells us that they "must act" and pass this legislation to protect "us" from the type of activity that TicketMaster and TicketsNow were alledged to have participated in ? Sounds like the fox telling the hens that he'll make them a great deal on a security system for the hen house. Hmmmm. (Read more about the alleged "scandal" by clicking here and here.) I ain't buying what they're selling. Are you ?

I've got a better, two-part solution. First, since according to Section 62-45-102(2) quoted above, "artists and teams," as well as the General Assembly, want fans to have fair access to tickets in the free market, how about if the ticket industry policed itself ? Why is additional government regulation needed ? The ticket industry could just stop selling the huge blocks of tickets to the scalpers and only sell the tickets to individuals. Plus, they could limit the number of tickets that can be purchased at one time by these individuals to maybe 4, 6, 8, etc. Doing so would give everyone wanting tickets a fair shot at getting them. Leave the government out of it. Nobody forces the ticketing agencies to sell the huge block of tickets to the ticket brokers. They choose to do so for one simple reason, and it has nothing to do with being fair to the fans - "It's all about the benjamins." They really don't care who buys the tickets as long as they get them sold and the money in their bank account.

The Scalpers Are Cheating The (Vancouver Folk Music) Festival (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The second part of this solution is where we, the fans, come in. We live in a free market with free market principles. We don't need government regulation to fix this problem. The simple law of "supply and demand" will fix it if we let it. The scalpers supply event tickets at huge markups, because we demand them. So, let's stop demanding them. Don't pay the outrageous prices. Then, the scalpers will have to lower their prices, or they'll still be stuck holding them when the game or concert is over.

Personally, I would not be surprised if it was found that many of the scalpers actually work for some of the artists, teams, and arenas. The reason I say this is because when I was attending the University of Tennessee in the late '80s, there were rampant rumors that the folks outside Neyland Stadium and Thompson Boling Arena scalping football and basketball tickets were actually hired by the UT athletic department. I do not know for sure if it was true, but other actions taken by the university led me to believe it was so.

The solution to the scalping problem in Tennessee cannot be solved with this lousy piece of legislation anymore than the meth problem was solved by a piece of lousy legislation. That one moved the decongestants behind the pharmacy counter making us "register" our purchases of cold medicine each time. You may remember that the General Assembly and law enforcement told us it was the ultimate fix. Now, that law has been such a dismal failure that they are considering passing another law which would require all decongestants to be available by prescription only. You know what that means ? Yes, you will be required to go see the doctor each and every time you get the sniffles if you want a decongestant. Most Tennesseans have allergy problems, so such legislation would result in a ton of extra doctors visits. Since they were wrong on the meth bill, why should we trust them on this one ? But, I digress, again.

In my opinion, we shouldn't trust them on this one either, especially when you consider that the bill is anything but "fair" to us, the ticket consumers, because it will infringe upon our freedom to transfer tickets we have purchased with our money. The only people it will benefit are the state's coffers and large ticket sellers like TicketMonopoly. Sorry, I did it again. I mean TicketMaster, but you knew that already. Bad Sheepdog.

I've addressed the highlights of what, in my opinion, is wrong with this bill. I could go on and on. Now, can I say for sure that the projected possibilities I've used in this post will come true if the bill passes ? Of course not. However, the supporters of the bill, likewise, cannot tell you with absolute 100% certainty that I'm wrong, either. That's the problematic part of the whole piece of crap legislation. There is so much ambiguity that we don't know exactly what it will and will not allow to occur. That's why it must be defeated. One thing I can guarantee is that it will not stop scalping. The scalpers will find a way around it.

Photograph of the Tennessee State Capitol on a sunny day, the central cupola soaring against a clear sky. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If Tennesseans want to remain free to do with their tickets what they please, then it is imperative that they contact their elected representatives. If you don't know who your State Senator and State Representative are, you can find out by clicking here. I can guarantee you that the folks with the money who support the bill, such as TicketMaster, are contacting the legislators. If we, Tennesseans, don't contact our representatives, it will be hard to defeat this bill. Plus, don't forget - this bill brings with it additional tax, ... oops, I mean fee, revenue. Politicians really like "the benjamins" and that makes the bill very appealing to them.

Therefore, we have to let them hear from us, because we have something that they like even more than revenue, and that's ....... our votes.

P.S. Here's one other little tidbit for you to think about. Section 62-45-110 of the bill states that, "A ticket represents a revocable license, held by the person in possession of the ticket, to use a seat or standing area in a specific place of entertainment for a limited time."

Tickets are already licenses, but this legislation reinforces that more. Additionally, if you flip over your sports or concert ticket, somewhere in the fine print it will say something along the lines of "no refunds or exchanges." Therefore, if this legislation becomes law, and you don't follow it to transfer a ticket purchase, the ticket can be revoked by the issuer without giving you a refund. Now, think about that the next time you buy those $100-a-piece professional sporting event tickets.

Man, wouldn't that suck if those tickets were taken away from you and no refund offered ? You might want to call your representatives now.

Related articles

• Citizen Uses Baltimore's Old Scalping Law To Give Ticketmaster A Swift Kick In The Pants (consumerist.com)