Charts

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP URGING ACTION ON HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE

April 10, 2020

Dear Mr. President:

We, the undersigned practicing physicians, urgently ask that you take two steps to help us treat patients according to our best ability and medical judgment, using the clinical and basic science data we already have on the effectiveness of certain established medicines in this war against COVID-19:

1. A Presidential Directive to remove the FDA Emergency Use Authorization restriction that states Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Chloroquine (CQ) from the Strategic National Stockpile, are only approved "for certain hospitalized patients,"  and to direct the FDA to include the option of early out-patient use of these medications.  

2. A Presidential Directive or Executive Order to a) prohibit Governors from arbitrarily restricting hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to only hospitalized patients, and b) prohibit State Medical Boards and State Pharmacy Boards from threats of disciplinary action (now occurring in multiple states) against doctors and pharmacists legally prescribing and dispensing HCQ and CQ off-label for early treatment or prophylaxis for COVID-19 in out-patients or at-risk or exposed persons. 

Restricting use to hospitalized patients means loss of the critical early window of opportunity to: (1) prevent the virus attaching to host cells, (2) reduce viral replication that prolongs time of infectivity and spread, (3) reduce the number of hospitalizations and need for intubation and mechanical ventilators, and (4) reduce risk of multi-organ damage and death or permanent lung impairment after recovery.    

Evidence of successful treatment in thousands of patients is accumulating from many countries as well as U.S. physicians; it is far beyond “anecdotal.”

HCQ has been FDA-approved for malaria since 1955, and it is now also approved for treating lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with an impressive safety record.      

When World Health Organization and U.S. academic experts say there is “no evidence that any medicine can prevent or cure” COVID-19, they correctly mean that we don’t yet have a randomized, placebo-controlled, doubleblind clinical trial (RCT). But designing, setting up, conducting, and analyzing any RCT takes many months or years.

We can’t wait months for a completed RCT or a vaccine. People are dying every day. Staggering numbers of people have lost jobs, incomes, and ability to live life normally, all of which lead to loss of life that could quickly exceed losses from the virus.

Physicians taking care of patients in our communities across the country must be free to use the medicines at hand free of politicians and bureaucrats’ second-guessing and threats. It is unprecedented—and lethal—for state governors and medical boards to forbid physicians’ freedom to prescribe long-approved and safely used medications.    

In a war to save lives and our country, we must fight with all the weapons we have at hand.  

Coronavirus Information

March 11, 2020

Visit coronavirus.gov for the latest information and resources on COVID-19 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Information from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services can be found here.

Be aware of potential price gouging and scams related to COVID-19. For more information from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, click here.

To connect potential volunteers and organizations addressing these pressing concerns, the United Way of Wisconsin, Serve Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin Volunteer Coordinators Association created the COVID-19 Response Initiative on the Volunteer Wisconsin website.

If you are looking for information on assistance for small businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic, click here.

Increased costs for Obamacare

October 16, 2012

When the 2010 healthcare law was proposed, President Obama was concerned that it not cost more than $1 trillion. He also wanted to make sure that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) not judge it as adding one dime to the deficit. So they implemented the law in a way that it would only start spending money in 2014, but not fully kick in until 2016. So they paid for four to six years of spending, but counted 10 years of revenue, taxes, fees and penalties, and also 10 years of supposed cuts in Medicare and Medicare Advantage. The cuts in Medicare were to come from provider payments. The cuts in Medicare Advantage were to come from benefits.

You can’t "bend the cost curve" by increasing taxes on medical device manufacturers, insurance plans and hospitals. But that’s what President Obama did. That’s why the cost curve has not been bent down on healthcare.

When they put that plan together, the CBO scored his healthcare law as actually reducing the deficit, but nothing can be further from the truth. I doubt there is actually going to be a reduction of deficit for the first 10-year window.

Furthermore, look what happens as you move the budget window forward. From 2013 to 2022, the 10-year cost of Obamacare will be $1.75 trillion - not $1 trillion, but $1.7 trillion. When it fully kicks in – from 2016 to 2025 – the law will cost at a minimum $2.4 trillion. That’s somewhere around $250 billion a year at least. If you just move the taxes, fees and penalties forward to that window, we’ve got about a $1.9 trillion dollar gap, or a deficit risk. Is President Obama’s proposal to take that out of Medicare?

It could actually be worse than this, because I don’t believe it will only cost $2.4 trillion. When the CBO estimated that cost, they anticipated that only 1 million Americans will lose their employer-sponsored care and have to access coverage through the exchanges. About 170 million people currently get their healthcare - their insurance - through their employer. Without the healthcare law most employers that are providing healthcare will continue to do that. They don’t want to expose the people that work with them to financial ruin.

Under the healthcare law however, the decision totally changes. Businesses will decide whether to pay $15,000 a year for a family plan, and try and comply with 15,000 pages of law and rules and regulations. That’s what we’re up to right now, 15,000 pages. The federal government has only begun to write the rules and regulations around the healthcare law. So businesses will need to pay $15,000 in cost, plus try to comply with 15,000 pages of regulation. Or does that employer decide to save money by paying the $2000-$3,000 penalty? And by doing so, they’re not exposing employees to financial risk; they’re making them eligible for huge subsidies in the exchanges.

Video courtesy of Chippewa Valley Community Television.

Stabilize our debt?

October 16, 2012

One of President Obama’s proposed solutions for the debt and deficit is something he calls the Buffett Rule, or Buffett tax. The President said that if you enact the principles of the Buffett rule, "not only do we pay for our jobs bill, but we also stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade."

Here are some basic facts: During President Bush’s first term he ran deficits that totaled $0.8 trillion. During his second term his total deficits equaled $1.2 trillion. Now President Obama has been somewhat of an overachiever when it comes to deficit spending. During President Obama's four years his deficits totaled about $5.3 trillion. How much would the Buffett tax raise? The answer is $20 billion.

Now $20 billion does not stabilize deficits totaling of $5300 billion. I think the President of the United States has a duty not to mislead the American public. With his Buffett Rule comment, President Obama was misleading the American public. He continues to do it by implying that just making the rich pay their "fair share" will stabilize the debt and deficit. It simply won’t.

The most recent Democratic proposal in the Senate to increase taxes on the top 1 percent would have only raised $67 billion per year, when our deficit is about $1,300 billion.

I oppose tax increases because the federal government needs to be focused on economic growth. We shouldn’t do anything that would harm economic growth, because that’s the No. 1 component of the solution. If we’re going to create jobs we have to grow our economy, and we have to make sure that businesses have money available to reinvest, to increase wages, to pay for healthcare, and to fund 401Ks and retirement plans. When the federal government takes that money out of the pockets of small businesses, it severely hampers their ability to grow their business and create jobs – which we need to do if we’re ever going to get our unemployment rates down to acceptable levels.

Video courtesy of Chippewa Valley Community Television.


What budget cuts?

October 16, 2012

From 1993 to 2002 the federal government spent $17 trillion. During the past 10 years the federal government spent $30 trillion - almost doubling spending from decade to decade. The House budget proposes spending $40 trillion during the next 10 years. President Obama wants to spend $47 trillion. There are no overall cuts, just an attempt to reduce the rate of growth in spending so we don’t bankrupt this nation.

Video courtesy of Chippewa Valley Community Television.

The data used in preparation of this chart can be viewed here.

Stabilize our debt?

October 16, 2012

One of President Obama’s proposed solutions for the debt and deficit is something he calls the Buffett Rule, or Buffett tax. The President said that if you enact the principles of the Buffett rule, "not only do we pay for our jobs bill, but we also stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade."

Here are some basic facts: During President Bush’s first term he ran deficits that totaled $0.8 trillion. During his second term his total deficits equaled $1.2 trillion. Now President Obama has been somewhat of an overachiever when it comes to deficit spending. During President Obama's four years his deficits totaled about $5.3 trillion. How much would the Buffett tax raise? The answer is $20 billion.

Now $20 billion does not stabilize deficits totaling of $5300 billion. I think the President of the United States has a duty not to mislead the American public. With his Buffett Rule comment, President Obama was misleading the American public. He continues to do it by implying that just making the rich pay their "fair share" will stabilize the debt and deficit. It simply won’t.

The most recent Democratic proposal in the Senate to increase taxes on the top 1 percent would have only raised $67 billion per year, when our deficit is about $1,300 billion.

I oppose tax increases because the federal government needs to be focused on economic growth. We shouldn’t do anything that would harm economic growth, because that’s the No. 1 component of the solution. If we’re going to create jobs we have to grow our economy, and we have to make sure that businesses have money available to reinvest, to increase wages, to pay for healthcare, and to fund 401Ks and retirement plans. When the federal government takes that money out of the pockets of small businesses, it severely hampers their ability to grow their business and create jobs – which we need to do if we’re ever going to get our unemployment rates down to acceptable levels.

Video courtesy of Chippewa Valley Community Television.


The growth of automatic spending

October 15, 2012

In 1962, 68 percent of the federal budget was discretionary spending. It was appropriated annually and came under some level control of Congress. About 32 percent of the budget consists of entitlements - or mandatory spending - and interest on the debt. This year that’s almost reversed. We now have 35 percent of the budget called discretionary - that’s appropriated by Congress - and 65 percent of the budget which is entitlement spending and interest on the debt that just occurs automatically. In 10 years, if we continue on this path, only 25 percent of the federal budget will be discretionary spending. Fully 75 percent will be mandatory entitlement and interest.

Video courtesy of Chippewa Valley Community Television.

The broken health care promise

October 15, 2012

As part of the effort to pass his healthcare law, President Obama famously said that he was going to"bend the cost curve down." He said that he was going to reduce of the cost of a family health insurance plan by $2,500 per year.
When he came into office, the cost of a family plan was a little more than $12,000 anually, so had he been able to keep this promise that would imply that the average cost for a family plan today would be a little less than $9,800. Instead the annual cost for a family plan is now $15,000 - up by almost $3,000. That’s a $5,000 broken promise.

Video courtesy of Chippewa Valley Community Television.

Federal spending continues to grow

October 15, 2012

Ten years ago, the federal government spent $2 trillion. This year we’ll spend $3.8 trillion or $3,800 billion dollars. We have virtually doubled spending in just 10 years. The most recent House budget proposes to spend $4.9 trillion 10 years in the future in 2022. President Obama believes that is not enough; he wants to spend $6 trillion. You don’t have to be a math major to see that in total, nobody is proposing cutting federal spending. Fiscal conservatives are trying to limit the rate of growth in federal government spending.

Video courtesy of Chippewa Valley Community Television.

The data used in the preparation of this chart can be viewed here.

What budget cuts?

October 15, 2012

From 1993 to 2002 the federal government spent $17 trillion. During the past 10 years the federal government spent $30 trillion - almost doubling spending from decade to decade. The House budget proposes spending $40 trillion during the next 10 years. President Obama wants to spend $47 trillion. There are no overall cuts, just an attempt to reduce the rate of growth in spending so we don’t bankrupt this nation.

Video courtesy of Chippewa Valley Community Television.

The data used in preparation of this chart can be viewed here.