The following editorial appearing in www.humanevents.com scrutinizes Obamacare from a constitutional perspective. No where in our Constitution is the Federal government given the authority to mandate or control healthcare. Furthermore, there are several inherent issues and requirements that are clearly unconstitutional.
Of course, many Democrats and the far left treat these issues in an arrogant, perfunctory manner. “We want this healthcare reform imposed, Constitutionality be damned” are their attitudes.
Our recommended approach: Kill the bill on the basis of Constitutionality issues which are myriad. Then, vote these corrupt imperious elitists out of office.
Obamacare's Fundamental Flaw
by Gary Bauer 01/01/2010
The Left has always had an erratic relationship with the Constitution. Liberal judges are known for discovering constitutional rights that had eluded judges for centuries. That’s because some of those so-called rights, such as the right to privacy, have no basis in the text of the Constitution but rather somewhere in its “emanations” and “penumbras.”
But the alleged right to privacy has its limits even among liberals. The Left’s judges routinely rule that the right protects abortion on demand, but its legislators have no qualms about extinguishing the right of citizens to make other private healthcare decisions free of government coercion.
While much of the healthcare debate has focused on arguments over policy, a more fundamental debate is taking place over whether the Democrats’ healthcare overhaul is even constitutional.
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to be involved in healthcare, and the loud affirmation of this fact may offer conservatives their best chance to pull the plug on Obamacare. It would be ironic if it is in the courts, liberals’ favorite venue for forcing social change, that the rule of law were restored and the personal freedom of the American people affirmed.
The power to regulate each citizen’s health care is not listed in the Constitution among the federal government’s enumerated powers, and the 10th Amendment makes clear that any powers not specifically granted to Congress are reserved to the states.
But among liberals, for whom it is an article of faith that government-run healthcare is a basic human right that no person of goodwill could oppose, any arguments about its constitutionality are irrelevant.
When pressed to address constitutionality, liberals often point to the commerce clause. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate “commerce among the several states.” But that does not mean Congress can meddle in anything that affects economic activity. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that the commerce clause allows Congress to regulate non-economic activities just because, somewhere down the road, they may have an effect on economic activity.
The most egregiously unconstitutional element of the health care legislation concerns the individual mandate, which requires each American to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty of up to $25,000 or one year in prison. The individual mandate is essential to the Left’s plan to impose government-run health care. Without it, because of the left’s insistence on barring insurance companies from denying coverage to people for pre-existing conditions, people would simply obtain insurance only when they have a need for medical care.
The individual mandate is a way to keep costs down, but there is not constitutional authorization for it. As Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has said, “…here would be the first time where our [federal] government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want…and…that’s not constitutionally sound.”
Back in 1994, during the Democrats’ last foray into healthcare reform, the Congressional Budget Office stated that compelling individuals to buy insurance would be “an unprecedented form of federal action” because “the government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the U.S.”
Liberals often liken the health insurance individual mandate to the law requiring all people who own automobiles to have auto insurance. But it’s a flawed argument. Only state governments, not the federal government, can require automobile owners to obtain auto insurance (and two states, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, don’t).
Also, as legal scholars at the Heritage Foundation point out in a recent legal memorandum, “automobile insurance requirements impose a condition on the voluntary activity of driving; a health insurance mandate imposes a condition on life itself.”
The Heritage memo, titled “Why the personal mandate to buy health insurance is unprecedented and unconstitutional,” also notes that states require drivers to maintain auto insurance only to cover injuries to others. “The mandate does not require drivers to insure themselves or their property against injury or damage. Thus the auto insurance requirement covers the dangers and liabilities posed by drivers to third parties only…”
It would be an understatement to say that individual mandate advocates have struggled to defend its inclusion. In a series of interviews conducted by CNSNews.com, Democrat after Democrat failed to give a coherent answer about where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance.
Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka said he was “not aware” of the Constitution giving Congress the authority, while Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) said he’d “have to check the specific sections,” and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) flatly admitted that he did not know.
Senator Blanche Lincoln should have taken the Nelson route but instead opined, “Well, I Just think the Constitution charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people.” And Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) dismissed the question, insisting that “nobody” questioned Congress’ authority to require individual mandate.
Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) said Congress authorization to impose an individual mandate could be found in the part of Constitution that authorizes the federal government to “provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.” But, as CNSNews.com pointed out, “health” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
Then there was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who simply responded “Are you serious? Are you serious?” By which she seemed to be saying, “Do you seriously think we progressives would allow constitutionality to get in the way of our half-century old goal of government-run health care?!”
There are other constitutional problems with Obamacare. For instance, if the public option provides for abortion, many Americans will be compelled to subsidize other people’s abortions, which would infringe upon the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom.
And constitutional concerns exist over exempting some states from Obamacare’s provisions. In Harry Reid’s fire sale for votes, he essentially agreed that some states would bear the brunt of the economic burden of the health care monstrosity but not others. Presently state legal experts are examining whether the constitution can force such a burden upon them.
Other constitutional issues are buried deep in the pages of the bill just now seeing the light of day. For example, in spite of recent Supreme Court decisions raising constitutional questions about racial set asides, Obamacare promises federal financial assistance to medical schools, but only if they have programs that serve “under-represented” groups based on race, sex, religion and sexual orientation.
An unintended consequence of the health care debate may be that legislators on both sides of the isle are dusting off and reading their copies of the U.S. Constitution. Conservative members of Congress should resolve in the New Year to talk more often and more loudly about the constitutional arguments against Obamacare.
If it passes, conservatives should test its constitutionality in the courts. It may well be that the jobs saved or created by the Obama Administration’s health care plan go to lawyers, not doctors.
The elitist hauteur of liberal politicians, if left unchallenged, will translate into significant loss of many of our remaining rights and freedoms. Several prominent Democratic politicians including Obama have displayed arrogant and wanton disregard for the specifics of the Constitution, perverting its dictates in order to meet their ideological agenda.
One of these involves the current healthcare legislation based on their belief that healthcare is a right that they can fully control, regulate and issue mandates including forcing people to buy health insurance and forcing citizens to subsidize the care of others. Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given such authority.
Health Care Not In Constitution
Investors Business Daily
Self-Evident Truths: Sen. Dianne Feinstein says it comes under the Commerce Clause. Rep. Steny Hoyer says it's mandated by the "general welfare" clause. Despite liberal wishes, health care is not a right.
The "living Constitution" that Democrats and their court appointees have given us may be the death of our freedoms. Their constitution adapts to the times and serves the whims of the elitists. The Constitution is supposed to limit government powers. It does not allow government to do anything it feels like doing.
Cass Sunstein, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is the author of "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever."
He writes glowingly of how President Franklin Roosevelt, unsatisfied with the Constitution the Founding Fathers wrote, proposed a Second Bill of Rights in a speech on Jan. 11, 1944.
One of the new "rights" FDR envisioned was "the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." If health care were a right under the U.S. Constitution, FDR would not have had to propose it as one to be added.
Yet liberals believe it should be, and some believe it is. Feinstein, the senior senator from California, was asked Tuesday by CNSNews on what constitutional authority the Senate and House bills are authorized. She responded, as others have, "Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That's how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs."
Maybe so, but it's a power that has been grossly abused and distorted beyond all meaning. The Commerce Clause was intended for the regulation of economic activity across state lines that involves the production distribution or consumption of commodities. One does not go to a doctor to engage in commercial activity.
Mandates including the one to buy health insurance go over the line. "Even if the Supreme Court has expanded the commerce power, there has been one constant," noted Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Congress was always regulating activities in which people chose to engage." He added that "rather than regulate what people have chosen to do," the mandates "would require them to do something they have not chosen to do at all."
When asked the same question, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer pointed to Article 1, Section 8, which gives the Congress the power to raise taxes in order to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Does that give Congress the authority to buy things like health insurance?
We and others have made the point that broccoli is good for our general welfare, but can Congress make us eat it and charge us if we don't? Losing a few pounds would help us all and reduce health care costs, but can Congress mandate health club memberships? Hoyer thinks so.
This clause says nothing about the citizens of the United States, only the United States as a whole. The Constitution provides for the raising of armies to defend the country, not for whether or when women should get mammograms and who should pay for them.
Hoyer is wrong, according to constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin: "The notion that the general welfare language is a basis for a specific legislative exercise is all silly, because if that's true, because general welfare language is inherently limitless, then the federal government can do anything."
Does the "general welfare" allow for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make backroom deals that tax other states and other citizens to benefit a single state such as Nebraska and its citizens and to literally bribe senators like Ben Nelson for their vote?
Health care is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the only time the word "care" appears is in Article II, Section 3, which says the president of the United States "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes our highest law, the U.S. Constitution.
The following article enumerates 10 immensely important issues related to the healthcare legislation in its present iteration. This is not what America needs or wants but instead, what Congressional Democrats and Obama insist on imposing on us. Meanwhile, Obama and Congress will still have their own gold plated healthcare plan with innumerable choices all subsidized at the taxpayers’ expense.
As we have iterated myriad times, this is not about healthcare. This is about increased government power, control and regulation of our lives and restrictions of our rights and freedoms. If we don’t become more vociferous, passionate and actively fight this legislation in a united fashion, the government will relentless continue to further diminish and suppress our rights, freedoms and choices.
We must do whatever it takes to reclaim our country!
10 Lumps Of Coal In The Health Care Bill
By Betsy McCaughey
For most Americans, the health reform bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing to pass will be worse than coal in their stockings. Herewith, the Top 10 List of Things You Don't Want From Health Care Reform This Christmas — But Will Get Anyway From Congress.
1. Higher premiums: If you pay for your own insurance, your premiums will cost 10% to 13% more than if the bill didn't pass, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Insurance won't be more affordable. Sixty percent of the newly insured are being enrolled in Medicaid, the public program for the poor.
2. A cost you can't afford and can't avoid: Though moderate-income families will get subsidies, buying insurance is mandatory. A family earning $54,000 will be expected to pay $9,000 (17% of pre-tax income) for the premium, co-pays and deductibles, according to the CBO. If you don't enroll, the IRS will find you and penalize you (Senate bill, p. 345).
3. A one-size-fits-all health plan: Your benefit package will be prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Whether you choose basic, silver or gold, and whether you pay for it yourself or qualify for a subsidy, your benefits are the same.
Gold plans simply collect more up front and give you a lower co-pay or deductible. It's unclear how possible it will be to buy supplemental insurance. The goal is to discourage health consumption and differences based on ability to pay.
4. A sin tax on your generous plan at work: This is another equalizer to discourage some people from getting more than others. The Senate bill puts a 40% tax on Cadillac plans (p. 1,980). About one-fifth of employer-provided plans fall into that "luxury" category. The CBO predicts that employers will downgrade your coverage to avoid the tax or reduce your take home pay.
5. Government controls on your doctors' decisions: The Senate bill bars doctors from participating in the private insurance system unless they implement whatever regulations the secretary of health and human services chooses to impose to "improve health care quality" (p. 149). That broad phrase encompasses everything in medicine.
This would be the first time in history that the federal government is given power over how doctors treat privately insured patients
6. Hospitals closed to seniors: The House and Senate bills slash payments to hospitals and other institutions that care for seniors. The chief actuary for Medicare, Richard Foster, warns that cuts in the House bill are so severe that some institutions may face severe losses or end their participation in Medicare (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 11/13/09 report). Some seniors won't know where to go.
7. Bare-bones hospital care: Patients of all ages (and all incomes) will suffer when hospitals are in financial distress. Hospital budget cuts will mean shortages of nurses, equipment and cleaning staff. The president's chief health advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, argues that hospitals in the U.S. offer more privacy and comfort than hospitals in Europe, and this "abundance of amenities" drives up costs (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
8. Future Medicare cuts: Look out baby boomers, the Senate bill establishes an Independent Medicare Advisory Commission to make automatic spending reductions in future years while insulating Congress from the political fallout. You won't get as much care as people in Medicare currently get.
9. A new social agenda: Money is allocated for adult preparation activities, including lessons on positive self-esteem and relationship dynamics, friendships, dating (and) romantic involvement (Senate bill, p.612). There are also giveaways to immigrants. The Senate bill hands low-income legal immigrants government subsidies as soon as they get here, instead of waiting the five years Medicaid requires (Senate bill, p. 274).
10. A tell-all relationship with every doctor you see: What happens in your doctor's office must be recorded in an electronic data base that can send the information to insurers and other medical offices (Senate bill, p. 62-66). Every doctor you see will have access to your medical history. See a psychiatrist? Your foot doctor will know about it.
These congressional tidings bring no comfort or joy. We must save ourselves from Congress' power now that it has gone astray.
• McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York state and founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths.
We have stated many times in previous posts that Obama and the Democrats in Congress want to impose a healthcare system on an unwilling American public that is the polar opposite of what these politicians speciously claim it to be. There will be severe restrictions on choices and availability of care with governmental rationing. Waiting times will be longer while the quality of care will plummet yet the total cost borne by each individual will significantly increase both through more expensive premiums and usurious taxation.
Congressional Democrats and Obama claim that their healthcare legislation establishes a great system for the American people. If it really is so fantastic then why are they refusing to agree to amendments that would force them to use the same healthcare system as they want to impose on us? The answer is because they know this system will be disastrous – limiting choice, rationing and restricting care, creating prolonged waiting times before receiving care and being far more costly for significantly inferior quality. Why should they have to give up their privileged premium care that is subsidized by the American taxpayer and provides them with myriad choices?
This whole healthcare reform is all about government control and nothing more. As Investors Business Daily put it:
“… health reform's purposes were advertised as cost containment and near-universal coverage. But what Democrats are set to enact will spend trillions dramatically increasing insurance premiums, and leave millions still without insurance.
In other words, their push for health reform has been based on lies. The real purpose: to gain control of America's health system.
And on top of the lies is the hypocrisy the American people have come to expect from their politicians: continuation of the nearly 50-year-old loophole providing senators and House members with a wide choice of private health plans.”
We need to continue fighting to stop this legislation as well as vigorously work at ousting these arrogant, imperious members of Congress who are ruling us rather than representing us!
Reform For You, But Not Congress
Investors Business Daily 12/04/2009
Hypocrisy: If the $2-trillion-plus government health care plan that Congress has come up with is so great, why do lawmakers refuse to live under it themselves? Their designs have been based on lies from the start.
The left thinks Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and David Vitter, R-La., have shot themselves in their feet. After unveiling last week their amendment that would force Senate and House members to cover themselves with any government health plan that passes into law, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, a champion of the public option, proceeded to ask if he could sign on as a co-sponsor. Liberal Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he might want to, as well.
"Coburn and Vitter weren't counting on that kind of support," gloated Nation magazine Washington correspondent John Nichols. "If they're smart, the rest of the Democratic caucus will follow Brown's lead and sign on for the public option."
Well, when it comes to feathering their own nests, congressional Democrats are smart. And they're not about to subject themselves to anything less than the taxpayer-subsidized, gold-plated array of private coverage choices they've enjoyed for nearly a half century in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
Coburn and Vitter's idea of politicians living under a government plan "was opposed unanimously by Democrats during interviews on Thursday," the Hill newspaper reports. The paper also noted opposition from senior Republican senators such as National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn of Texas and Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, who asked: "Why would I want to put my family in that, let alone anybody else's family?"
Senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle know how good they have it under the FEHBP, the world's largest group health program. The reason Congress' own health care works so well is that it's based on consumer choice and market competition — the opposite of what it's trying to impose on everybody else.
Members of Congress and millions of federal workers may choose from hundreds of private fee-for-service plans, HMOs or preferred provider organizations, with no federal worker living anywhere enjoying fewer than a dozen options.
FEHBP members can easily switch plans if they become dissatisfied; that puts competitive pressure on insurers to provide quality and value. Surveys show that members love their coverage, which is why almost all federal employees join the program.
The FEHBP is shielded from state regulation and Uncle Sam subsidizes premiums by more than 70%. Canadian physician and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Dr. David Gratzer, whose opposition to government-run health care comes from first-hand experience, observes that "the federal government's role in the FEHBP is to pay the bills," unlike the fiscally doomed Medicare program, of which "Washington is the designer of benefits."
Today, instead of the federal takeover Democrats are rushing to enact, lawmakers could give Americans the kind of high-quality health care choices they enjoy. A simple system of vouchers would allow recipients to choose any health plan on the market. The system could be means-tested, with Medicare giving "larger vouchers to poorer and sicker seniors and smaller vouchers to healthy and wealthy seniors, using current health-risk-adjustment mechanisms and Social Security data on lifetime earnings," says Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Vouchers "would contain Medicare spending, and are the only way to protect seniors from government rationing," according to Cannon.
"The FEHBP is an excellent model for designing a system based on broad personal choice," argues Robert Moffit, the Heritage Foundation's director of health policy studies. "There is no reason," he adds, "why a reform of Medicare could not establish a similar structure for national plan options," including integrating private retiree health insurance into the system.
But instead of such common-sense reform, Americans are staring at thousands of pages of new regulations on their personal medical treatment, including a government-run option that will devastate the private coverage most Americans have and like. The inevitable result, as independent studies warn, is thousands of dollars more to pay in health premiums.
In last year's presidential campaign, health reform's purposes were advertised as cost containment and near-universal coverage. But what Democrats are set to enact will spend trillions dramatically increasing insurance premiums, and leave millions still without insurance.
In other words, their push for health reform has been based on lies. The real purpose: to gain control of America's health system.
And on top of the lies is the hypocrisy the American people have come to expect from their politicians: continuation of the nearly 50-year-old loophole providing senators and House members with a wide choice of private health plans.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued new recommendations regarding obtaining mammograms that are irresponsible, shocking and not evidenced based but are concordant with requisite rationing for Obamanocare. The following editorial assesses this morally corrupt pronouncement.
Rationing's First Step
Investors Business Daily 11/18/2009
Health Care: A government task force has decided that women need fewer mammograms and later in life. Shouldn't that be between patient and physician? We have seen the future of health care, and it doesn't work.
We have warned repeatedly that the net results of health care bills before Congress will be higher demand, fewer doctors, more cost control, all leading to rationing. New recommendations issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) regarding breast cancer and the necessity for early and frequent mammograms do not convince us otherwise.
Just six months ago, the panel, which works under the Health and Human Services Department as a "best practices" study group, was shouting its concern about a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study showing a 1% drop in the number of women regularly undergoing such screening and prevention.
The task force was saying that women older than 40 should get a mammogram every one to two years. It found that frequent screening lowered death rates from breast cancer mostly for women ages 50 to 69. But that was then, and this is now.
"We're not saying women shouldn't get screened. Screening does save lives," Diana Petiti, task force vice chairman, said of the recommendations published Tuesday in Annals of Internal Medicine. "But we are recommending against routine screening."
Now the panel recommends that women in their 40s stop having routine annual mammograms and that older women should cut back to every two years. The concern allegedly is that too frequent testing can result in increased anxiety, false positives, unneeded follow-up tests and possibly disfiguring biopsies. Preventing breast cancer and saving lives almost get lost in the new analysis.
"I have a particular concern in this case about who was involved in this task force," says Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., who was a heart surgeon in private life. "There are no surgeons or oncologists who deal directly with breast cancer or even radiologists. ... I've seen far too many young women develop late-stage breast cancer because they didn't have adequate screening."
Little, if anything, has happened medically in the last six months to cause such a shift. A lot, however, has happened politically as a health care overhaul has limped forward on life support. The Congressional Budget Office has been busy pricing these various bills, a process that includes screening and prevention.
As we have warned, the growing emphasis seems to be on cost containment rather than quality of care. About 39 million women undergo mammograms each year in America, costing the health care system more than $5 billion.
"The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40," says Otis Brawley, its chief medical officer. "Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider."
Daniel Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School, says: "Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and those idiots want to do away with it. It's crazy — unethical, really."
This, sadly, appears to be the future of medicine under government-run health care. Aside from taxes on insurers, providers and device manufacturers, we'll be up to our eyeballs in cost-effectiveness boards that will decide who gets what tests and treatments, when and if. These are only recommendations for now, but they are the shape of things to come.
We have mentioned numerous times that while the Democrats aver that the Obamanocare/Pelosicare legislation is just about healthcare reform, it unequivocally isn’t. This is an indisputable unconstitutional theft of Americans’ healthcare rights and choices as well as their hard earned income. It is a government confiscation of another 17% of our GDP as well as a payback for political support of the Democrats to labor unions and trial attorneys in particular.
Buried within an even more bloated 1900 page document is a proviso in Section 2531 which rewards trial attorneys by creating disincentives for states that are attempting or have already implemented laws aimed at reducing extortionist medical-legal settlements.
"A state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys' fees or imposes caps on damages."
Characterizing this, IBD note that “… states that have the “nerve” to rein in frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits — and that's 85% of them, according to a Harvard study — would be punished if they also established medical courts where health care experts, rather than untrained juries, settle injury disputes based on actual medical science.”
Once again, the Democrats are legislating what is in their best interest and not what is best for all Americans.
The House Republican Conference has compiled a list of all the new boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in H.R. 3962 which is Pelosi's legislation for the government takeover of health care and the abrogation of the rights, freedoms and pillaging of the hard earned incomes of American citizens. Specifically identified in the article New Federal Bureaucracies Created in Pelosi Health Care Bill on the GOP.gov website, these include:
Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
"Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)
Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)
Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)
Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)
Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
"Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
"No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)
Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)
Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)
Does anyone really think that this massive increase in the federal government bureaucracy will actually improve our healthcare, make it more efficient and less costly?
"The Senate Finance Committee health bill released last week controls doctors by cutting their pay if they give older patients more care than the government deems appropriate. Section 3003(b) (p. 683) punishes doctors who land in the 90th percentile or above on what they provide for seniors on Medicare by withholding 5 percent of their compensation.
This withhold provision forces doctors to choose between treating their patients and avoiding government penalties. HMOs used the same cost-cutting device in the early '90s until it was deemed dangerous to patients and outlawed. Now, lawmakers want to use it against the most vulnerable patients, the elderly. This bill and four others under negotiation also would slash about $500 billion from future Medicare funding."
Do you really want the Government dictating your medical care?
The Democrats’ plans for healthcare reform would be disastrous for Americans medically and financially as we have noted many times here before. Realizing that a vast majority of Americans are vehemently against the plans and socialized medicine in general, Pelosi and the Democrats are intent on imposing their ideological misguided legislation on us no matter what. They see it as government knows best and the greater its power and control, the better. We see it as an arrogant and corrupt power grab and abrogation of our rights and freedoms that will be a fiscal and social calamity.
We vehemently oppose the Democrats’ actions on healthcare reform and even more egregiously, their contemptuous and dismissive responses to an angry American public strongly against the legislation. Obama and Congressional Democrats have stated in no uncertain terms that they will impose this healthcare reform on us no matter what.
We have dissected this reform in previous editorials. This bill is ostensibly about healthcare but in actuality IT IS NOT. It will not lower costs, increase quality, or provide universal coverage which is the Democrat’s mantra. Instead, it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs far in excess of what would occur if nothing were done at all as well as massive increases in taxes. It will also lead to rationing, long waits, poorer quality of care, loss of confidentiality or our healthcare records, withholding of care and therapeutic options, increased morbidity and mortality of Americans, etc. Shall we go on?
In its essence, this bill is a naked, corrupt power grab by the Federal government, comprising an additional 17% of our economy under its control for a sum total of 43%. Its covert intentions are to steal additional freedoms and rights from us and make us more subservient and under greater government control. If you have scrutinized what legislation is available for public examination, read fact supported commentary and parsed the Democrats’ ideology, you will realize unequivocally that these conclusions are not paranoid rants. THEY ARE FACT BASED REALITY.
WE MUST RELENTLESS FIGHT AGAINST PASSAGE OF THIS LEGISLATION!!
The following is an extremely important and trenchant editorial posted in the October 19th edition of Investors Business Daily that sums up the current dire situation:
Dems Go Nuclear
Health Care: Democrats seem set to use the "nuclear option" to ram their government health takeover into law. Bipartisanship already looked dead; now it looks extinct.
The health care revolution the Democratic Congress has planned — with its inevitable medical rationing, thousands of dollars in increased insurance premiums, and coverage of illegal aliens — may get placed on the familiar fast track used to spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars this year.
Instead of the 60 votes needed in the Senate if proper parliamentary rules were followed, passing this reshaping of the medical system as a "budget reconciliation" measure would mean only a simple majority was needed.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., accused of cheating on his taxes, last week held a hearing to let the House version of the health reform bill be passed this way. As the Washington weekly Human Events reports, Democratic leaders "have apparently invoked the 'nuclear option' to shut out Republicans and ensure the bill is passed before the end of the year."
So all those "town hells" during the summer, where senators and congressmen were given an earful about passing secretly written thousand-page bills without reading them, will be ignored.
In the age of the Internet, Congress refuses to post for computer access the most consequential legislation in history, as far as its effect on human lives (and deaths) is concerned, before voting on it.
The people will have to wait until it's all signed, sealed and delivered before finding out exactly how this government-imposed monster will devour health care as Americans have known it for all their lives.
And why? Because both congressional Democrats and the White House are afraid of the power of the people. Just as they are both afraid to give the opposing party a seat at the negotiating table.
Rangel didn't allow Republicans to offer amendments in committee. Why not? Fear that Democrats might be embarrassed by having to reject a Republican amendment to protect Medicare, for one thing. And fear in general that the people might catch wind of a few bipartisan ideas that sound more sensible than their big government solutions.
The magnitude of what Congress is about to do is staggering. The federal government is about to begin dictating Americans' behavior regarding the most intimate and vital area of life — health.
You play ball with Uncle Sam and pay thousands and thousands of dollars for far more expensive insurance than what you're now used to, or you get slapped with fines. And as yet we don't know how heavy those fines will be — or if noncooperation with the new system will mean more than fines.
Doesn't Congress owe it to us to provide time to mull this over before it takes force?
Shouldn't the exact wording of this radical transformation of our medical system be available on the Internet for weeks before a floor vote takes place?
And shouldn't medical experts, health care providers and legal analysts get the opportunity to read every word of such a bill carefully, then give their well-considered analysis to concerned Americans?
Apparently not, according to those now running Washington.
To them, this is a rare opportunity to take a giant step toward single-payer, European-style socialized medicine. And they have no intention of letting the people stop them.
The following op-ed was written by well respected physician, Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. In it, Dr. Vliet delineates her vehement opposition to the present healthcare reform.
In the 2008 campaign, we heard healthcare in this country is “broken” and must be “reformed.” We heard “healthcare reform” would be the signature piece of an Obama Presidency. We were promised no new taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 per year. We heard promises of transparency in government. We heard promises of a White House that would listen to all. Now that President Obama and a Democratic majority are in office, what have we gotten?
The healthcare proposals have become a massive power grab to control your money, your health options, your businesses, your liberty, and ultimately your life. It is not about insuring the poor.We already have Medicaid to cover the poor.
What the Democratic majority is doing to healthcare in this country is a crime. Punishment won’t fall on Congress and the President, who are excluded from the healthcare proposals. Punishment falls on the American people, especially the elderly.
Word of a new “stealth” strategy to ram healthcare “reform” through the Senate raises even more cause for alarm and adds to the crime of this massive power grab. The plan appears to be for Senator Majority Leader Reid to merge the two Senate bills that have passed out of committee, and attach them as an amendment to a House TARP bill, already passed by the House but curiously gathering dust in the Senate. Once the Senate votes on this “TARP” bill with the healthcare amendment tucked neatly inside, the healthcare punishment is a “done deal” without further debate. Such an abuse of power and due process would be an unforgiveable crime against the American people, perpetrated by the very people elected to represent us.
Instead of “health insurance for all,” the House and Senate healthcare bills have become punishment for all. Here is the list of Americans who face the healthcare “reform” punishment:
- Punishment for the sick. Those who have medical expenses each year will no longer beable to deduct those expenses on taxes until the expenses reach 10% of adjusted gross income (AGI). The current deduction is set at expenses above 7.5% of AGI, so the Senate plan now ADDS a 2.5% tax on those who are already paying out of pocket for medical expenses. Clearly, if someone is spending more than 7.5% on medical costs,that person is ill. The Senate bill makes the sick even sicker from the stress of having to pay more taxes!
- Punishment for the elderly. Medicare cuts of 404 BILLION is the latest figure released by the Senate; earlier the White House budget office said $500 Billion – more than a full year’s Medicare budget – would have to be cut from Medicare. How can anyone begin to think these cuts will not penalize the elderly by delaying, rationing, or denying treatment?
- Punishment for young people. Young healthy people who do not buy government mandated insurance will be punished with the form of a excise tax – reported amounts have been from $1900 to $3800 per person.
- Punishment for anyone not paying the excise tax. The IRS fine for non-payment of tax can be $25,000 and a year in jail. So those who are punished by the new tax risk being accused of a tax crime if they don’t buy government-mandated insurance and who don’t pay the penalty tax.
- Punishment for insurance companies. Companies providing “generous health insurance plans” will be hit with a 35% tax.
- Punishment for consumers who buy “generous” health insurance policies, as the tax on insurance companies is passed on to purchasers.
- Punishment for those who buy their own health insurance…a new 40% tax. Does it really make sense to punish the responsible people who take care of their own healthcare bills?
- Punishment for low income seniors, Hispanics, and Blacks who will lose their Medicare Advantage program under the new proposals.
- Punishment for those with Health Savings Accounts – HSAs will be extinct.
- Punishment for specialists who serve mainly elderly patients, such as cardiologists and oncologists. Such specialists are slated to have their reimbursements for services slashed by 44% under the Senate bill.
- Punishment for medical device makers in the form of new taxes (a tax that will be passed on to consumers).
- Punishment for all doctors, who are required to purchase expensive new computersystems and software to convert to Electronic Medical Records to meet the 2014 mandates in the Stimulus Bill.
- Punishment for those who value their medical privacy. The Stimulus Bill requires all physicians, beginning in 2014, to send patients’ medical records directly to the federal health czar without further permission from patients.
- Punishment for all 50 State governments. Already running at a deficit with the recession, State governments face catastrophic increases in costs with Medicaid costs being shifted to them by the Federal government under the new proposals.
- Punishment for everyone, due to Speaker Pelosi’s proposal for a National Sales Tax (also called a VAT) to pay for healthcare reform. This new tax would hit everyone hard in a recession, and would be on TOP of existing state and local sales taxes.
- Punishments for all. All, that is, except the exempted elite: members of Congress, the President and his family, trial lawyers, and Unions (SEIU, AFL-CIO, and others). The exempted elite retain their private care while becoming the very ones who force more taxes, penalties, higher costs as punishment on the rest of us.
This reminds me of the Soviet Union when I visited there in 1974 and 1975. The Soviet ruling elite were the only ones with cars, comfortable apartments…and access to the best healthcare.
I understand at a personal and professional level the perils of government-run healthcare. I have patients in my practice who have come many countries with government run healthcare that doesn’t address women’s unique health needs. I live in a state with a large Native American population, whose healthcare under the Indian Health Service, run by the federal government, has been abysmal. I have personally had an emergency hospitalization in England. I am walking today because I had the best spine surgery care in the world at Johns Hopkins. If I had lived in Britain, or Canada, or Europe and had to wait for MRIs and surgery, I would paralyzed from the neck down.
I will never agree that nationalized healthcare anywhere provides better quality of care than we have in the United States. I am not alone. Recent polls by different organizations have found that 80-90% of M.D.’s and D.O.’s oppose government-controlled healthcare.
Don’t be fooled by the American Medical Associations endorsement of Obamacare. Only 17% of practicing physicians actually belong to the AMA. Last week’s “white coat” photo op at the White House was a carefully selected group of 2008 campaign donors “Doctors for Obama.” They were NOT anymore representative of practicing physicians across this country than the AMA.
The American people should be even more alarmed by a recent Investors Business Daily poll: 45% of doctors who responded said they would retire or resign from medicine rather than practice medicine under government control. Who will take care of patients then?
The proposed healthcare plans are the most massive transfer of power to the executive branch of government that has ever occurred or has even been contemplated. This concentration of power in the executive branch violates the Constitutional requirement for balance of power, and for separation of powers among the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government.
This crime against the American people is far worse than the Stamp Act levied by King George.
That was the final straw that set off the first American Revolution.
Arrogance, condescension and prevarication have become quintessential ingredients of the more powerful Democrats. Harry Reid evinced these key traits in his statements regarding healthcare and malpractice reform. The Democrats disingenuously toss about cost of healthcare reform as being around $800 billion to $1 trillion which we all know extremely underestimates the expense. In what was probably somewhat of an extemporaneous comment that inadvertently revealed more reality, Reid stated definitively the cost of healthcare reform to be more than double what other Democrats have been quoting, that is, $2 trillion dollars.
Two telling facts were exposed by his statement regarding savings with malpractice reform. One, that there is little inclination for the Democrats to address this issue despite its preeminent importance. Secondly, his deeming that the estimated saving of $54 billion per year is an “inconsequential” amount is inexcusably arrogant, disdainful and irresponsible. Since when is a billion dollars, never mind $54 billion trivial? That is our money – nearly $750 for a family of four per year!
This is the same attitude that is used when it comes to inserting pork into legislation such as the thousands of individual pork projects that were placed in the stimulus bill (aka American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or Porkulus Bill) in February. Five billion dollars here, ten billion dollars there, another fourteen billion dollars for another useless, unrelated project and pretty soon you have billions of REAL dollars REALLY wasted!
The following is the text of Harry Reid's comments as seen in the video:
"He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn’t it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, were talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. It’s a very small percent."
Canadians are fed up with their government controlled healthcare system and are seeking a return to privately run one. They are fed up with interminable waits to be evaluated by a physician or receive treatment, restrictions on care received as well as inability to obtain the care, difficulty in extrication from waiting lists and illegality of obtaining private self-paid care. Despite this and worldwide evidence of abysmal failure of socialized on multiple levels, Obama and the Democrats in Congress are relentlessly seeking to impose such a system on the unwilling and outraged American people.
If Obamanocare is approved by Congress, you will be in for a startling discovery as paraphrased in the parlance of Congressional Democrats:
“'If you've got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, too f..king bad - you won’t necessarily see your doctor or maybe any doctor, for that matter, for a long time. And forget about your plan, we forced it into bankruptcy by our mandates and pricing policies."
The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee wants levies on insurers to pay for ObamaCare and fines for families who don't sign up. We can cut costs and expand coverage without sacrificing freedom. Read article
A Senate bill lets the president "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "nongovernmental" computer networks and do what's needed to respond to the threat. Didn't they just collect our e-mail addresses?
We wish this was just a piece of the fictional "Dr. Strangelove" that fell to the cutting-room floor, but it's not. It is a real piece of disturbingly vague legislation sponsored by Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. Read article
Veteran reporter, author and commentator Bernard Goldberg reports that when CBS News did its fake National Guard story on George W. Bush avoiding service in Vietnam, it knew it was a lie. Read article
Most of the news media, ideological adherents of the more liberal Democrats and staunch supporters of healthcare reform, would have you believe that a majority of physicians are in favor of Obamanocare. They use meretricious arguments with deceptive presentations of information and facts which often are knowingly false just to try to convince the public that doctor support the proposals so you should too.
A common tactic is to cite the AMA’s support of the changes while also speciously informing the public that it is “the association that represents American doctors” or that it is the “primary lobbying association for physicians”. This further “confirms” the public’s misconception of the role and importance of the AMA and adds credence to the posture these presentations are taking.
For most American doctors, the AMA is irrelevant and inconsequential. Despite the high level of importance that the media accords the AMA for purposes of their rhetoric, only 18% of American physicians are members and most belong for purposes other than lobbying. The AMA does some lobbying but that is not its primary purpose and furthermore, there is little physician support behind its positions. Many of the small minority of physicians who were members have been so outraged by the AMA’s public position that they are defecting and cancelling their memberships.
A recent IBD/TIPP Poll of 1376 randomly selected physicians revealed that two thirds opposed the present proposals. Even more significant is that 45% of physicians would consider leaving medicine or retiring early if one of these plans is passed. This extremely high percentage illustrates the immense dissatisfaction that physicians have with the present legislation and the grave consequences that the proposals would have on healthcare in general.
Obama’s healthcare speech delivered before Congress and to millions of Americans watching failed at its attempt to increase public support for the healthcare reform bill. It was, in our opinion, an uninspired rehashing of previous deceptions, lies and impossibilities that are not supported by reality and which contradict the provisions of the bill.
As we have fervently stated before, this legislation just boils down to the liberal ideology that the government knows best and should have complete control of the healthcare sector including unfettered access to medical, tax and financial information. It is not about lowering the total cost of healthcare or making it more affordable.
Anyone with even the most elementary knowledge of economics can tell you that as the price of a service facing an individual decreases, the demand increases. Without getting into the complexities of the differences of the price from the real cost of the service, the bottom line is that overall expenditures will increase disproportionately. To this equation add millions of more patients now desiring to use/overuse healthcare services and you end up with massively increased costs, staggering budget deficits, oppressive taxes to help pay the skyrocketing costs, rationing and poor quality healthcare (just to name a few problems).
Unfortunately, there are countless more dangerous provisions contained within the Obamanocare bill. The article below parses Obama’s address and enumerates several areas where he overtly, irrefutably and intentionally lied.
…the charlatan-in-chief, Barack Obama, … speech to a joint session of Congress was both a masterpiece of rhetoric and a shameless fraud.
To tell us, with a straight face, that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpah and an insult to anyone's intelligence.
Europe's ban on the incandescent light bulb began phasing in this month, and the U.S. will soon follow. Is Thomas Edison to blame for global warming? And why are we exporting green jobs?
Single Payer: In Britain, where the public option is about all most patients get, a newborn has died because national guidelines recommend that the baby not be treated. Yet again, government care produces tragedy.
The mother, Sarah Capewell, reportedly begged doctors to save the baby, who was born 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy. But guidelines used by Britain's National Health Service say that babies born fewer than 22 weeks into a pregnancy should not be treated.
Although Obama claims he that he may “think about considering” some test programs regarding tort reform, his perfunctory attitude on this, ideology and the protection of his constituency do not support any serious commitment on his part. His habitual prevaricating justifies giving no credence to his comments until concrete and serious actions are taken.
Does Obama’s statement that "I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs" convey a strong conviction that litigation is a problem or that he would champion reform? Definitely not! The word “may” in “may contribute” belies his verbal “commitment” to consider tort reform.
There is abundant and irrefutable evidence that defensive medicine practiced by physicians in attempts to avert malpractice suits comprises around twenty to thirty percent of healthcare costs translating into of tens of billions of dollars wasted annually. Even with trillions dollar budgets and deficits, this is still real money.
The phone rings and the lady of the house answers, "Hello?"
"Mrs. Sanders, please."
"Speaking."
"Mrs. Sanders, this is Dr. Jones at St. Agnes Laboratory. When your
husband's doctor sent his biopsy to the lab last week, a biopsy from
another Mr. Sanders arrived as well. We are now uncertain which one
belongs to your husband. Frankly, either way the results are not too good."
"What do you mean?" Mrs. Sanders asks nervously.
"Well, one of the specimens tested positive for Alzheimer's and the
other one tested positive for HIV. We can't tell which is which."
"That's dreadful! Can you do the test again?" questioned Mrs. Sanders.
"Normally we can, but the new health care system will only pay for
these expensive tests just one time."
"Well, what am I supposed to do now?"
"The folks at Obama health care recommend that you drop your husband
off somewhere in the middle of town. If he finds his way home, don't
sleep with him.
There are a rapidly dwindling number of Americans left (no pun intended) that actually believe Obama when he deceitfully states that the healthcare bill is solely about providing care for all Americans – and nothing else. In previous posts, we have enumerated countless examples of this egregious lie and the pernicious effects that the contained provisions will have on our privacy, rights, choices, finances, taxes, access to care and more. We have been resolutely emphatic that this bill is also about government intrusion and control of our lives and control of an additional seventeen percent of the nations GDP.
To make matters worse, CBS News has reported a previously unnoticed provision of the healthcare bill which will legally grant widespread access to our federal tax returns. It mandates that the Health Choices Commissioner and staff, state health programs and all their staff and the expansive Social Security Administration with its thousands of employees will have unfettered access to these returns which so far have been fairly well protected by the IRS. The government’s utter incompetence in protecting highly classified information is well known. Do you really think, then, that your personal information will remain secure with tens of thousands or more people having access to it?
Even more disconcerting, is that this bill will provide the government with complete access to your health records, tax returns and all financial information including bank accounts. Do you really want or trust the government to possess all that information on you? It surely leaves little that it won’t know about you. Even worse, we have seen this type of information used by the government and others for nefarious purposes that could leave you embarrassed, vulnerable and defenseless (see for example Joe the Plumber).
We reported on June 21st and June 24th ABC’s championing of Obama’s healthcare plan with an all day extravaganza in the White House replete with positive stories and angles and no opposing points of view. This included no commercials that contained content critical of the plan. Most of the media have been cheerleading sycophants of Obamanocare – but of course denying their partiality.
As further evidence (like we didn’t have enough already) of their unabashed monolithic support for Obamanocare, both NBC and ABC have refused to air a national ad that is critical of the legislation. The commercial is by the League of American Voters and features a neurosurgeon who warns that the proposed government controlled health care system will lead to the rationing of medical care.
The following video is of Congressman Mike Rogers (Rep – Michigan) testifying on healthcare reform in the House. Though the numbers may not be entirely accurate, he presents a very compelling argument against the legislation and some of the dangerous provisions that are contained within it but denied by Obama and the Democrats so as to deceive the American public yet again. He also comments on the severely flawed process by which this legislation is being considered.
This is a very informative, easily understandable assessment of this pernicious healthcare bill.
The following article, written by a practicing physician, provides his perspectives on dealing with the government now and how this can provide insight into how severely healthcare will deteriorate in the future with the more restrictive and global Obamanocare. He cites several personal examples from his practice and applies these experiences to the broader picture.
What we also see is that government mandates and control create “unintended consequences”. He cites an interesting example where the federal government seeks gender parity for individuals being accepted to medical schools (independent of whether or not there is parity in desiring in becoming a physician) so that there are relatively equal numbers of men and women training to become doctors. Because women work far fewer hours and retire years earlier than men, the result is a relative shortage of physician services for a given number of physicians trained.
We can extrapolate consequences like this using many of the mandates and provisos of the proposed healthcare legislation and realize that we are in deep trouble if this gets enacted.
Decisive and effective tort reform is desperately needed in this country. Our uncontrolled legal system lottery has wreaked havoc on Americans, American industries, innovations and on healthcare and healthcare costs. Physicians frequently order tests that would otherwise be unnecessary for patient care just to cover all bases in attempting to reduce the risk of a lawsuit. This is also called practicing defensive medicine and may cost our country at least $200 billion dollars annually. Then there are the direct costs of defending frivolous lawsuits which add billions of dollars more.
There are also the indirect costs such as discouraging otherwise capable individuals from pursuing a career in medicine. Those who decide to become physicians may avoid training and later practicing in very high risk specialties such as Neurosurgery, Cardiac Surgery and Obstetrics, areas where there are already a shortage of providers. Then there are the extremely dedicated, experienced and wise physicians who have been in medicine for many years who no longer want to contend with these stresses and issues and either limit their practices to lower risk procedures or retire from medicine altogether. This translates into losing some of the best and most experienced doctors from the healthcare system, an undesirable and patently avoidable situation.
With this only being part of the total story, consider the arrogance and chutzpah that Obama had when he addressed the AMA on June 15th. Despite being cognizant of the exorbitant and unnecessary costs that liability issues add to the overall price of healthcare, he stated in no uncertain terms that tort reform was not presently a negotiable issue. Of course, this should come as no surprise to anyone as attorneys are among his biggest supporters. With one of his stated goals being to reduce the cost of healthcare cost, it is imperative that he needs to seriously and effectively address tort reform.
We wonder how many of our Congressional Representatives and Senators have actually read the Healthcare Reform Bill personally rather than having their staff provide them with a synopsis. If consistent with their previous history of presumptuously not reading legislation that they have written and sponsored (Cap and Trade and Porkulus Spending bills, etc.), we surmise that a majority of Democrats have no clue what is contained in the Obamanocare legislation. Fortunately, many Americans have made the prodigious and heroic effort to scrutinize the bloated and arcane 1017 page bill and what they have uncovered has been shocking to say the least. What has been discovered are provisos that often have nothing to do with healthcare delivery or quality but instead with such inimical dictates as wealth redistribution, affirmative action, rationing, and unwarranted government intrusiveness and control. These are dangerous for America and Americans. We have dissected many of these issues here in previous articles.
The following is a letter to Senator Bayh written by Dr. Stephen Fraser, an Anesthesiologist practicing in Indianapolis, who pored through the entire document and enumerated several areas of concern. Many of these issues have been intentionally and dishonestly denied by Obama, Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats. You can check them out for yourself to vouch for their validity.
July 23, 2009
Senator Bayh,
As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the healthcare bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a healthcare system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our healthcare system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.
I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.
Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self insure!!
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Page 42 of HC Bill:The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!
Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to you ur banks accounts for elective funds transfer.
Page 65 Sec 164: is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations: (ACORN).
Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!
Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example - Translation: illegal aliens.
Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members - your Health care WILL be rationed.
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.
Page 124 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monopoly.
Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make! (salary)
Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE!
Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.
Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.
Page 150 Lines 9-13: Business's with payroll btw 251k & 401k who doesn't provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)
Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans finances /personal records.
Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that!
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors, low income and poor are affected.
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors, doesn't matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same!
Page 253 Line 10-18: Govt sets value of Doctor's time, proffession, judgment etc. Literally value of humans.
Page 265 Sec 1131: Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.
Page 268 Sec 1141: Federal Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever Govt deems preventable re-admissions.
Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -Govt will penalize you.
Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Doctors what/how much they can own!
Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. Can u say ACORN?!!
Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.
Page 341 Lines 3-9: Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan.
Page 354 Sec 1177: Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people! Unbelievable!
Page 379 Sec 1191: Govt creates more bureaucracy - Tele-health Advisory Comittee. Can you say HC by phone?
Page 425 Lines 4-12: Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life patients.
Page 425 Lines 17-19: Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!
Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. (assisted suicide)
Page 427 Lines 15-24: Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends.
Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced care planning consultant" will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.
Page 429 Lines 10-12: "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOVT!
Page 429 Lines 13-25: The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life!
Page 469: Community Based Home Medical Services = Non profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?
Page 472 Lines 14-17: PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORIGINATION. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based organization. Like ACORN?
Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage.
Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.
I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.
Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor/patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.
Respectfully,
Despite the potentially grave consequences that Obamanocare will have on Americans, a little humor is always welcomed.
The following is an assessment of the healthcare legislation derived from polls taken of the members of various medical societies:
The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted
Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, "Oh, grow up!"
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea..
Anesthesiologists thought the idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Congress.
Once again Obama is gratuitously attacking physicians asserting that greed motivates their decision-making. In his latest intentional deception, he claimed that family care physicians collect “$30,000, $40,000, $50,000” for amputations while the reimbursement for cognitive services such as assisting patients in weight loss, dieting and monitoring their medications is “a pittance”.
In actuality, Medicare reimburses a surgeon between $541 and $708 for a foot amputation. This intentional deception designed for political points is so egregious, irresponsible, and depraved that the President should be thoroughly rebuked for it. Aside from a few medical organizations that took offense and issued statements, the mainstream news media accepted it as dogma. The effect is that many of the public who are uninformed in such matters may be swayed by such baseless screed.
This is a President who will confabulate the most outrageous statements just for political points. This is despicably immoral and must be vigorous, loudly and inexorably challenged.
The overall healthcare system in the United States is probably the best in the world though it is not without areas that can be improved. If you just listened to the shrill demagogues of the far left wing of the Democratic Party, one would think that we have a "healthcare crisis" in America. However, closer great scrutiny reveals not only do we have the best healthcare delivery system in the world but we also have premier healthcare technologies, cutting edge surgical procedures, and pharmaceutical innovations. What we have in America is a "health insurance catastrophe" largely caused by Congressional mandates over the years, a malignant unfettered tort system wasting tens of billions of dollars of resources annually, and unreimbursed healthcare due to illegal immigration and related issues.
Approximately 1/6th of our population does not have any medical insurance coverage either because of a lifestyle choice, they are temporarily between jobs, have not applied for federal coverage for which they are eligible, or are not a legal citizen of the United States. All of these people, however, do have access to medical care. If they show up in an emergency room , they must be treated. That is a Federal law. They can not be turned away! The rest of us who have employer provided heath insurance plans or have purchased private insurance on our own are paying for these estimated 47 million uninsured.
Let's repeat this again: EVERYONE in America has access to the healthcare system even if they are unable or unwilling to pay for services rendered and even if they have no insurance.
So what is all the fuss about at Town Hall meetings set up to discuss President Obama's obsession with healthcare reform?
Obama and Congressional Democrats claim that this reform is all about increasing the quality of care, increasing affordability and making healthcare available to all Americans. Unfortunately, these reasons are all fallacious and are pretenses for the real goal: Government run and controlled healthcare with social engineering and wealth transfer. Everything else is an intentional LIE! What, for example, does affirmative action in medical school admissions have to do with quality of health care? There are many more affirmative action provisos like this one in the legislation.
All across the United States innumerable Americans - most of whom have never protested anything in their lives - are doing so also because they do not trust the Federal Government. Period. One only need to look at the abysmal track records of Social Security (going broke), Medicare and Medicaid (grossly underfunded and going broke) and the United States Postal Service (posted a $7 billion loss in 2007 and 2008) to see the typical inefficiencies, incompetence and wretched mismanagement characteristic of the Federal government.In the end, we the TAXPAYERS, will be paying the price and ending up with less and rationed care, higher taxes, fewer choices, inferior quality of care and fewer innovations.
Then we have privacy issues, bureaucratic interference in an individuals' medical care, rationing, etc...
It is unclear who the specific individuals were that wrote the ponderous Obamanocare legislation but you can be sure that it largely involved lawyers and government bureaucrats. Important as healthcare is in addition to the fact that it constitutes around seventeen percent of the economy, you would hope that in the creation of a prudent, effective and cost saving solution, physicians would have been intimately involved in the discussions as they are the most knowledgeable individuals with regard to healthcare, its delivery, intricacies, issues and nuances. But as we all know, Congress is not about finding truths or the best solutions – it is all about politics, favored constituencies, personal power and wealth.
One physician who has voiced considerable concern about the present healthcare legislation is Congressman Tom Price (R. – Ga.) and he speaks from a wealth of experience. His medical background includes over twenty years was in private practice as an orthopedic surgeon after which he became an Assistant Professor at Emory School of Medicine and then the Medical Director of the Orthopedic Clinic at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta.
In the following testimony during House hearings, Representative Tom Price launches a scathing attack on the present healthcare legislation and how this whole process has been one completely controlled by Pelosi and the far left. There has been essentially no input from Republicans.
The White House has established an e-mail account, flag@whitehouse.gov, for the explicit purpose of collecting information about websites that don’t agree with the President’s healthcare legislation. The Obama administration is essentially requesting citizens to turn in other citizens. Isn’t this what was going on in Russia under Stalin and others and in Nazi Germany? Some more similarities between Obama and ruthless despots.
Who is a major player behind this snitching site? It is Obama’s healthcare czar, Nancy DeParle, who is part of the Office of Health Care Reform that was established by executive order but operates in a stealth fashion. Its operations are in violation of Obama’s pledges of transparency with his administration. Anyone hear the ACLU compaining about this? We didn't think so!
In the following expose, Michele Malkin explores the sinister and byzantine connections with far left groups and corrupt influences that are present.
Intimidation and misinformation are alive and well directly from the White House. Although some of this is delivered in a seemingly harmless fashion by the soft spoken non-threatening elderly communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, Linda Douglass, the message is clear. Obama is going to play hardball with dissenters so beware.
The writer of the White House blog on August 4th, Macon Phillips, states:
"Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions."
She also cites one example as shown in the following video that certain individuals want to “makes it look like the President intends to "eliminate" private coverage, when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.” If one reads the legislation and listens to the rhetoric of its proponents, this is exactly their ultimate goal. Obama has been caught on video making such statements as has others including Barney Frank. Some other allegations that she enumerates and claims are incorrect in actuality are contained in the legislation and are true.
Phillips continues in a bizarre and sinister fashion by stating:
“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
This behavior combined with other recent actions aimed at concentrating unfettered power in the White House such as the appointment of countless shadowy czars surely reeks of fascism. Our rights of free speech and to dissent are unmistakably being challenged by the White House.
This posting and intention by the White House has enraged Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn who noted:
“I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy’ or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests.”
He went on to give this assessment:
“As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights.”
We must remain undaunted and continue to vehemently voice our extreme displeasure publically and privately with the Government’s attempts to take over and run our healthcare system.
The United States has the best healthcare system in the world. Period! There is no other country where the composites of overall care, outcomes and effects on the economy are better. Most Americans are in agreement with this assessment. A poll taken in 2006 by ABC News, the Kaiser Family Foundation and USA Today found that 89% of Americans were quite happy with their healthcare.
Does this overwhelmingly positive sentiment by Americans provide a reason to totally dismantle and destroy the best system in the world and replace it with a government controlled one? Of course not! Can improvements be made to our healthcare system? Of course! What we don’t need is an excuse by the Federal government to take full control of our healthcare thereby abridging our freedoms and liberties to make choices regarding our health and the ability to obtain the appropriate care.
You and every other American have the right to know the facts regarding the proposed Federal government healthcare reform. Unfortunately, what has been sold to the public is a Trojan Horse – it is not what it appears to be and what many politicians want you to believe (so they can garner public support for its passage). The Federal government wants to impose socialized medicine on us, a system which has failed everywhere else that it has been implemented. That is why, for example, tens of thousands of Canadians come to the United States each year to have routine and not so routine procedures performed. They were either told either that they would not be eligible for treatment or would have to wait months or even more than a year to be able to be treated. If you have a brain tumor, breast cancer or advanced heart disease, this is a death sentence.
You may also want to know that if this plan of socialized medical care were so superior, how come Congress is exempting itself from it and will have its own gold-plated plan? When President Obama was asked a theoretical question that if the need arose for his family to obtain care which it couldn’t obtain through this government run system, he indicated that he would look elsewhere for their care. These are definitely not ringing endorsements of the government run plan from those who should know its design best!
Politicians may point to the AMA’s (American Medical Association) and ANA’s (American Nurses Association) endorsement of a government run one-payer system as a selling point for the plan. After all, these are the professionals who are intimately involved in our medical care. This is an unfortunate misconception. Although the AMA has been in existence for over 160 years, it is not the true, representative political voice of or for American doctors. As a matter of fact, only around 20 percent of physicians belong to the organization and most of these are not doing so for political reasons. The overwhelming consensus of physicians and nurses nationwide is that this plan is very bad for Americans and for America.
The following are just some of the issues that you need to consider regarding the proposed government takeover of the healthcare system:
It will:
Result in the rationing of care. Many individuals for a variety of reasons (such as age or cost) will be unable to obtain medical care despite having the government coverage
Decrease the quality of medical care
Cause prolonged waiting times to see your physicians
Increase the death rate both due to inability to obtain medical care in a reasonable period of time as well as a result of inability to receive certain treatments because government bureaucrats deems them too expensive
Increase morbidity/ suffering because of prolonged waits to see a physician and inability to receive certain treatments because government bureaucrats deems them too expensive
Place layers of bureaucracy between what your doctor recommends for you and what you can actually receive
Allow for full government access to your medical records and privacy and make protecting your private medical information nearly impossible
Result in massive tax increases that will affect all Americans directly and indirectly
Cause a permanently higher unemployment rate (see European countries) due to the exorbitant costs of mandated coverage on businesses
Result in lower salaries and hourly rates of employees to compensate for the high cost of employee mandated insurance – whether or not the employee wants or needs the insurance
Massively increase the budget deficit by trillions of dollars or more – and still not be able to be fully funded
Will be far more expensive than our present system of healthcare – which was a major selling point of this plan.
Be extremely complex and convoluted with the creation of many new government agencies and oversight groups. Think of the Post Office inefficiencies and poor customer service on steroids.
Result in the stifling of medical innovations and implementation of new technologies
It will not:
Result in universal medical coverage for all Americans
Lower the total cost of healthcare
Increase the quality of medical care delivered
Make it painless to obtain medical care
Increase the efficiency of healthcare
Allow you to maintain your private insurance long term for a variety of reasons
Address tort reform in any meaningful way. In order to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits, doctors are forced to practice “defensive medicine”. This translates into subjecting patients to costly unnecessary tests and procedures (many of which the patients demand and the doctors don’t feel would otherwise be warranted) adding up to billions of dollars wasted every year.
Buried within the more than one thousand page Congressional healthcare legislation is a provision for end of life counseling of seniors. The intent, of course, is to reduce expenditures for healthcare for those that may have a poor prognosis for survival. Depending on whether it is you, your relative or someone else’s family member, this proviso is in essence a form of rationing.
According to Betsy McCaughey, an expert on this legislation, a "troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, Pages 425-430)."
The stealth insertion of affirmative action provisos in the Obamanocare legislation is reprehensible, dishonest and insulting to the American people. These racially based stipulations alone should relegate this proposal to oblivion. IBD captured its essence succinctly: “It's affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.”
This is massive program that will legislate and implement “legal” reverse discrimination which is blatantly wrong both legally and morally. This is remarkably similar to the recent Ricci vs. DeStefano and the City of New Haven firefighters case that “racially empathetic” Sonia Sotomayor ruled against but was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court.
IBD shrewdly noted, “Whether it's that firefighter coming up the ladder, or the brain surgeon about to remove that tumor in your head, everybody wants that person to be the best regardless of race or ethnicity — and not admitted by quotas and promoted by political correctness.”
Though not necessarily assuming fault or jumping to conclusions, Michael Jackson’s death may be the quintessential example on two counts of the downside of using race as a criteria versus qualifications. It is not clear if Michael Jackson selected his doctor, who now is being investigated for manslaughter in his death, solely because he was black (see Kanye West's deceased mother's scenario). Secondly, he should have thought more about checking the doctor’s training, credentials and qualifications before selecting of him. If he did, he would have discovered that apart from other significant issues, this doctor attended a medical school that historically trains black physicians who quite frequently lack the intellectual aptitude and scholastic credentials required to attend “mainstream” medical schools. This same medical school consistently ranks at or near bottom in comparison to the other medical schools in this country. If you want great quality, you have to start with the best raw materials.
There is also a significant and unfortunate unintended consequence of affirmative action that can be problematic for the countless members of those minorities who have succeeded because of their abilities and not because of quotas or racial preferences. For example, if you have an emergent medical problem and the doctor who is about to treat you who is Afro-American, can and should you trust his/her abilities and judgment? You think: Is he/she a doctor because he/she earned it based on personal merit and intelligence or because of skin color and affirmative action? This should never be a question that one is forced to ponder! On the other side of the coin, minority physicians who earned their medical degree based on merit like everyone else shouldn't have to deal with the questioning of their abilities just because race based affirmative action quotas.
Fortunately, Americans and more Congressional politicians are coming to their senses and realizing that Obama’s campaign to sell his government run healthcare plan is replete with rhetoric, lies and deceptions and not reality and desired solutions. For example, he promises more coverage and medical care but with decreased costs yet the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this plan will result in an increased cost of in excess of $1 trillion dollars which is still considerably underestimating the true amount.
In the following insightful editorial, Charles Krauthammer assesses the baseless rhetoric, inconsistencies, politics and major shortcomings of this healthcare plan in general.
Has Congress become an imperial political entity that imposes mandates on its citizens but exempts itself? Yes, unfortunately, but this is not even a recent phenomena. This furtive practice which is dishonest, morally corrupt, and reflects an abuse of power and disdainful attitude of many politicians, must end. They are supposed to be our representatives who serve for the American people and not for their own aggrandizement of power, wealth and perks.
This leads to Obamanocare and the government takeover of the healthcare system. Congress wants to impose this draconian system on the American public, one that will result in rationing of medical care, long waits, significant restrictions and generally inferior quality care. They, however, will keep their separate gold-plated healthcare plan funded by the taxpayer and which has none of these issues. Very few Americans are aware of their exemption and Congress and Obama will surely not advertise it. Congressional Democrats and Obama also have not only been dishonest regarding much of this program but have overtly lied about provisos buried deeply within this mammoth labyrinthine bill. Let the imperial politicians feast on wine and caviar while the average American is stuck with bread and water … and the oppressive taxes!
Obamacare will take away billions of dollars annually from the Medicare program in order to help pay for the government run healthcare program. To add insult to injury, some of this money will be used in the treatment of illegal aliens.
During his press conference on July 22nd, Obama made the following statement regarding physicians, reimbursement and decision making:
“So if they're looking and you come in and you've got a bad sore throat or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out.”
Though this statement might have been expressed for political reasons in order to reacquire public support for his government takeover of the healthcare system, it once again demonstrates him to be uninformed, irresponsible, incompetent, biased and arrogant. This together with Obama’s stalwart support of trial attorneys who are among his largest benefactors and his unwillingness to explore meaningful tort reform, are just more evidence why he and the government can’t and shouldn’t be trusted in controlling the healthcare system for more than 300 million Americans.
Republican Tom Price, M.D. (R-GA), who had practiced medicine for over twenty years, was incensed by Obama’s comment and the implication that doctors may be more interested in money than in helping patients. He issued the followed response:
“It’s obvious President Obama has absolutely no idea what motivates someone to enter the field of medicine,” said Chairman Price. “Medicine is about service and helping one’s fellow man. By insinuating that doctors make treatment decisions based on how much they will be paid, the President displays an astounding disregard for that service and insults every single medical practitioner.
“The only possible explanation for such a comment is his failure to understand the root problems and challenges of our health care system. If the President is sincerely interested in reducing unnecessary procedures, he should speak to his friends in the trial bar about medical malpractice reform. Instead, the President would rather attack those who are responsible for providing the highest quality healthcare in the world.”
Who do you want managing your healthcare, Doctors or politicians and attorneys? We thought so!
It appears ironic that the group which probably has the most to lose with Obama’s healthcare reform plan, doesn’t generally appear not too concerned with its passage. As Dick Morris noted in his assessment:
“Obama’s health care proposal is, in effect, the repeal of the Medicare program as we know it. The elderly will go from being the group with the most access to free medical care to the one with the least access. Indeed, the principal impact of the Obama health care program will be to reduce sharply the medical services the elderly can use. No longer will their every medical need be met, their every medication prescribed, their every need to improve their quality of life answered.”
Why aren’t the elderly and elderly to be not in a state of panic about this? The reason, as we have discussed countless times, is that Obama and the Congressional Democrats have intentionally used disingenuous rhetoric in order to hide the real truths from all but the most perceptive and informed individuals. The elderly are expecting one thing including much better care than they have right now with Medicare and in fact will be facing far worse prospects including ineligibility for care.
Congress is using inscrutable terminology to confuse and mislead the public in order to pass and institute government controlled healthcare before the public realizes that they have been more than duped. In essence, what would be implemented is a rationing of healthcare, restriction of therapeutic options, government intrusion throughout the process, disruption of the doctor-patient bonds, severe impersonalization, and a convoluted bureaucratic nightmare. It may be akin to your worst Post Office nightmare – on steroids except that your health and life are at risk.
Using this comparative effectiveness research, whole treatment options may be unavailable not due to ineffectiveness but because of cost. Because for myriad medical problems one approach, medication or treatment will not work on everyone, it will mean that some Americans will not be treated or treated effectively and, therefore, will be out of luck (and possibly life). Of course, in this one size fits all approach, they will still be paying for healthcare one way or another.
Some important questions to consider for just this issue include: 1) how many treatment options will be available or allowed for a particular diagnosis? 2.) what criteria are used to determine what cost differential makes a potential treatment option too costly and therefore unavailable? Is it a dollar amount? A percentage amount? 3.) Will government bureaucrats determine the treatment choice based on costs or will your doctor make the final decision? 4.) We know that some diseases have been determined to be very expensive to treat and therefore will not be covered in a government run plan. Will these patients have any options? Will there be legal coverage for this problem outside of the system and if so, will the government defray some of the costs?
We definitively know that many Americans will be refused healthcare treatments based on such factors as age, their medical condition, and the particular problem that they are afflicted with. This and the limitation of treatment options are unequivocally rationing of care, plain and simple. Both Obama and Congress deny this but THEY ARE LYING!
The Obama and many of the Democrats are duplicitously trying to reassure the American people that government controlled healthcare will allow everyone to have affordable health insurance and improved quality of care. They also have the option of staying with their private health insurance if desired.
THIS IS ALL A BIG INTENTIONAL LIE – EVERY BIT OF IT!!! None of this is true. Period!
The government is intentionally withholding information and deceiving the public so as to maintain enough support for the passage of this massive, disorganized, bankrupting healthcare reform bill. This collusion of deception by our government was also editorialized yesterday regarding Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
Ignoring the other issues for now such as quality, rationing and costs, Investor’s Business Daily noted that on page 16 of the House bill, private health insurance is prohibited unequivocally. And that is just for starters regarding this bill.
Americans need to wake up and relentlessly contact their Representatives as well as their Senators.
To see in full screen mode, press "full screen" button in upper right hand corner
This is our new Government run healthcare plan as proposed by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. And you thought that the Government couldn't make things simple and easy! What were you thinking?
There is no high quality, inexpensive successful single payer government directed healthcare system in the world. Period! It has been an expensive failure wherever it has been implemented. Inevitably, there is rationing of care, long waiting times to be able to receive care, increased mortality and morbidity, and stifling of medical innovations and implementation of state of the art treatments and diagnostic methods. And wouldn’t you know it, this is exactly the healthcare system that Obama and his fellow Democrats want to impose on the American people! Of course, they will be able to keep their special Rolls-Royce healthcare benefits. Like other similar legislative edicts by Congress, it applies to everyone else but them.
In the healthcare reform package, there will be mechanisms by which care will be rationed. This can be based on cost, age, disease, pathology or even severity of the disease or person’s health. Bureaucrats may hold more sway over decisions than healthcare providers. For example, if you are 75 years old, physically active and in good health but just fractured your hip, the Government may refuse to authorize surgery to repair it because you are above the arbitrary cut-off age of 72 years. Instead, they may say just use a walker and take pain killers which could permanently disable you or limit your ability to walk. This is definitely not what most Americans want!
The federal government’s involvement in healthcare in such programs as Medicare and the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical system has been infinitely less than stellar. Bankrupting costs, inefficiencies, corruption, infamous red tape, arcane rules and regulations, and especially for the VA – poor quality of patient care. Despite this, Obama and the Democrats feel that the Federal government is eminently qualified to take over the nation’s healthcare system for everyone. This would dwarf the combined size of the Medicare program and the VA System.
Aren’t these the same people who brought us the Post Office, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the IRS, etc.?
Obama and the Democrats have proposed several plans for healthcare reform that can’t truly be considered just “reforms”. These will essentially destroy the world’s best healthcare system and replace it with a government run one that will result in rationing of healthcare, long waits to receive medical care (weeks or months), exorbitant bankrupting costs, massive tax increases to try to pay for the system, marked decline in the quality of medical care, and a severe shortage of well trained healthcare providers. A vast majority of Americans are extremely satisfied with the present healthcare system and do not feel a complete transformation is warranted. Yes, many changes are needed such as tort reform and other legal issues that can save billions of dollars annually and reduce wasteful, unnecessary tests and procedures that have no benefit except to protect healthcare providers from frivolous lawsuits.
The real agenda behind the government run, single payer healthcare system is power, control and ideology. Period!!
The Medicare program is just a fraction of the size of what the federal government would be creating with it proposed healthcare reform yet it has failed at running the former. It is pure government logic then to propose an entity that can be a gargantuan failure costing trillions of dollars more per year yet require rationing and resulting in inferior quality of care.
Do a majority of the members of Congress have brains? (Sorry, that evaluation is not a covered service!) Little known by the public is that Congressional members have their own healthcare system (Rolls-Royce quality) and therefore will not be forced to deal with socialized medicine personally. It is not good enough for them but it is good enough for everyone else!
Most of the American public is totally clueless when it comes to the radical healthcare changes proposed by Obama and the Democrats. They are under the assumption that the results will be excellent but affordable healthcare for all. Instead, the plans based on radical and failed ideologies are far more nefarious, dangerous and necessitate massive tax increases in addition to insurance premiums. Some of these proposals include or will result in arbitrary restrictions of care with rationing, plummeting quality, extraordinarily delays in obtaining treatments that can be deadly, labyrinthine bureaucracies, overworked and less qualified healthcare providers and ancillary personnel with bureaucratic demeanors, and removal of much or your rights to make and pursue healthcare decisions. Think… Post Office of Healthcare!
The following article is a brilliant, thorough, well thought out and substantiated assessment and refutation of Obamacare. It is a classic and must read.
The following editorial further illustrates problems associated with government run healthcare plans. The Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress glibly tout this as an affordable panacea for the country’s healthcare needs rather than what it truly is - another bankrupting entitlement program without proper constraints. The financial stakes for healthcare “entitlement” are enormous, potentially dwarfing any other government liability except for Social Security.
In its present iteration, this is yet another proposed massive wealth transfer that will penalize productive, hard working Americans individuals who will be forced to pay the exorbitant taxes to support the program to get much less than what they have now. (Will it provide gold plated coverage for illegals?) What will they be receiving in return? A healthcare system that will be far inferior to what we have at present which is among the best in the world. There will be rationing of care, long waits, and unavailable treatment modalities. Just ask people living in Canada or England how bad socialized medicine is. People are dying waiting for care. Need a cardiac catheterization? You will have to wait 9 months. Hernia repair? Can’t do it this year – we have reached the predetermined number that is allowed. Need a rotator cuff repaired? That wait will be at least another 10 months…or more. Or, you can go to the US and pay out of your pocket but you can have your surgery performed right away.
Here is a very important question. Have you heard one word from anyone in the Obama administration or from the Democrats about Tort Reform? There has been no mention of legal reform whatsoever. That should not be surprising as the legal “profession” is among the largest contributors to the Democratic Party. The costs of medical care related to the practice of defensive medicine are quite substantial and comprise a sizable percentage of the overall costs of medical care. These costs are simply to protect physicians and other healthcare personnel from frivolous lawsuits and usually add little to the decision making or quality of care in the treatment of patients.
There are myriad unanswered questions that need to be addressed in healthcare reform.
Contemplating having to deal with a one “provider” healthcare system is bad enough. In any business that is known as a monopoly and we know the inimical consequences of this. When the government is the entity running the system, we are really in trouble. A few examples may come to mind. The Post Office, IRS, any Federal government office, and Medicare! Is the post office a paragon of polite and helpful customer service and organization? Didn’t think so! How about paying your taxes? Is the IRS with its infinite, arbitrary, political and arcane rules user friendly? Didn’t think so either! What about cost controls? The government has been known to pay more than $800 for a hammer or $2000 for a toilet seat? Billions of dollars are lost yearly by the federal government through Medicare fraud and inefficiencies. Should we trust them with our lives, health and tax dollars to oversee and control a system multiple times larger? Absolutely, unequivocally not!
We could cite myriad examples of government inefficiencies, disorganization, lack of controls and security, etc. The point is that even though the current system is flawed and needs reforming, placing the entire control in the hands of one provider, particularly the Federal government is a recipe for disaster on many fronts.
The following article delineates some relevant but important issues regarding socialized medicine. What's Wrong With Competition In America's Health Care System?
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments