Home

Universal Coverage Means Less Care

1 Comment

Contributor & author: Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

Interview – Contact Dr. Orient directly at (520) 323-3110 or by email at janeorientmd@gmail.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When the money is gone, treatment is canceled. There will be fewer beds, fewer CT scanners, fewer drugs, and fewer doctors. But all will be fair. No rationing by price, just by waiting lines, political pull—and death. There will be no medical bills to pay after a service, if you get any service. Only taxes in advance, service or no service.

That’s why the universal care advocates count enrollees, not the number of services, and constantly harp on “excessive” treatment, even while planning to make patients wait months for an appointment.”

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

May 16th, 2017

The reported success of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ObamaCare) is based on enrollment numbers. Millions more have “coverage.” Similarly, the predicted disasters from repeal have to do with loss of coverage. Tens of thousands of deaths will allegedly follow. Activists urge shipping repeal victims’ ashes to Congress—possibly illegal and certainly disrespectful of the loved one’s remains, which will end up in a trash dump.

Where are the statistics about the number of heart operations done on babies born with birth defects, the latest poster children? How about the number of babies saved by this surgery, and the number allowed to die without an attempt at surgery—before and after ACA? I haven’t seen them. Note that an insurance plan doesn’t do the operation. A doctor does. The insurer can, however, try to block it

Also missing are figures on the number of courses of cancer chemotherapy given, or not given, or the time from diagnosis to death in cancer patients before and after ACA. Five-year survival of cancer patients in the U.S. is generally better than in countries that have universal coverage, or the type of plan progressives want to import. Again, the insurance plan isn’t medicine. You can get medicine without insurance, and if you have insurance it might refuse to pay.

There are selected comparisons of change in mortality rates in states that did or did not expand Medicaid (such as New York vs. Pennsylvania). On the other hand, mortality did not decrease in one state (Oregon). These estimates—guesstimates really, are based on the weakest type of data, and the differences may have nothing to do with Medicaid. Maybe it was better AIDS treatments. We hope that the FDA does not use evidence this poor to evaluate drugs.

But what effect did ObamaCare have on overall U.S. mortality?

Between 2014 and 2015, U.S. mortality rates increased for the first time in decades. This primarily affected less-educated whites. Is ObamaCare the cause? There are many factors involved, drug abuse probably being the most important. But I suspect that if repeal had happened in 2012 or 2013, it would have been blamed.

More

New Obamacare Mental Health Policies Can Take Your Gun and Put You In a FEMA Camp

Leave a comment

Pay attention to this!

A NATION BEGUILED

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/02/26/new-obamacare-mental-health-policies-can-take-your-gun-and-put-you-in-a-fema-camp/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-obamacare-mental-health-policies-can-take-your-gun-and-put-you-in-a-fema-camp

2-27-2016 9-31-14 AM

by Dave Hodges

There is an ongoing battle for the psychological health and welfare of America’s children and eventually all Americans. Since 2002, the government has been intent on testing millions for mental illness. This obsession even extends to our veterans as they return from combat and leave the service. The veterans are increasingly being diagnosed as having PTSD and they are subsequently being adjudicated to not being eligible to own a firearm.

Marti Oakley has been at the forefront on covering elderly abuse in which the courts are stealing the property and incarcerating the elderly into mandatory detention in a care facility because they are mentally infirm. And why is this happening? If an elderly person fails to balance their checkbook, for example, they are robbed and confined by the courts.
These practices are reminiscent of how the Soviets used to imprison political enemies. The Soviets simply said…

View original post 1,754 more words

Candidate Bush Thinks Medicare Funds Should Be Redistributed From The Elderly To The Young

2 Comments

new-logo25By Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In an odd sense of timing, Jeb Bush, former Republican governor of Florida, released his plan for overhauling Obamacare on the same day as the first debate for the Democrat Presidential candidates, so there was little media attention to his proposals. Governor Bush’s plan does address some of the worst provisions of Obamacare and pushes for a more limited role of the federal government. But it’s still a very mixed bag.

On the plus side, the Bush plan lacks the massive micromanagement of Obamacare. It would08-10-2015_Illusion give states more flexibility to decide how best to use a pool of money from federal taxpayers to provide medical coverage for those with low income and/or pre-existing conditions. But each state would still have to meet federal criteria on various outcome measures, yet to be determined. This is a “tweak” but not a “fix” for a serious flaw of Obamacare.

Bush proposes an overhaul of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that is long overdue and badly needed. As he stated, “It should not cost $1.2 billion to $2.6 billion nor take 12 to 15 years to advance a medicine from discovery to patients, but that is the case under the Food and Drug Administration’s current regulatory mess.” In my field of medical practice, American women were denied FDA approval of Estrogel, a bioidentical estradiol gel for menopause therapy, for 30 years after it was approved in France and widely used around the world.

Another plus is that Bush proposes to end the inequality in tax treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance plans, which are free of both income and payroll taxes, and individually purchased policies, which are not tax-deductible, and must be purchased with after-tax dollars. In other words, owning your own policy absorbs up to twice as much of your earnings as an employer-owned policy. This inequity leads to “job lock”—people are dependent on their employer for affordable health coverage. Your employer doesn’t own you, but he may own your health insurance!

The Bush plan, however, like many other supposedly conservative plans, uses the idea of a “refundable tax credit” to help pay for health insurance. If the amount is greater than taxes you owe, it is an outright subsidy, a transfer from other taxpayers’ earnings to health insurance companies. In other words, it is a wealth redistribution scheme that distorts the market by prepaying for other people’s “healthcare” (which means their medical care plus a generous cut to its managers and payers).

Fundamentally, Jeb’s plan suffers from several fatal flaws common to many proposals:

  • The idea that government should be involved at all in regulating and overseeing medical care. Government-mandated coverage and onerous regulations are at the root of the massive cost increases in health insurance premiums under Obamacare.
  • The idea that funds should be redistributed from Medicare serving the elderly to pay for the expansion of Medicaid for younger people. Obamacare’s redistribution of medical service funds takes money from sick older patients needing cancer treatment, joint replacement, hospital readmissions for relapses of heart or lung disease, hospice, and home health care of the sick to instead provide “free” abortion, contraception, and preventive screenings to younger, healthier people. Bush is apparently silent on the more than $700 billion Obamacare cut from Medicare to spend on more politically favored younger groups and their lifestyle choices.
  • The idea that Obamacare can be “tweaked” rather than repealed in its entirety. To date, Senator Ted Cruz is the only Presidential candidate of either party to call for total repeal of Obamacare, not just “tweaking.”

Obamacare is a “bomb” about to destroy the world’s best medical services. It is already causing health insurance premiums to explode, and causing massive damage to the economy with its job-killing mandates on employers. You wouldn’t want the bomb squad to “tweak” a bomb that is under your house, as Bush proposes. It is time for this bomb to be dismantled and removed completely as Senator Ted Cruz proposes, before more damage is done.

We need a candidate who sees clearly the harm that Obamacare is doing to individuals, medical practices, patient services, and the economy. We need to repeal Obamacare’s whole tangled structure and start over, with market-based, patient-centered solutions. We need to end the idea that the federal government can “fix” quality or cost by overseeing and interfering in medical decisions. The power to make those decisions belongs in the hands of patients, in consultation with their chosen physicians.

http://www.aapsonline.org

Author/Contributor short bio:  Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.,

Dr. Vliet is Chief Medical Officer of Med Expert Chile, SpA, an international medical consulting company based in Santiago, Chile whose mission is high quality, lower cost medical care focused on preserving medical freedom, privacy, and the Oath of Hippocrates commitment to individual patients. Dr. Vliet is a past Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). Dr. Vliet also has an active US medical practice in Tucson AZ and Dallas TX specializing in preventive and climacteric medicine with an integrated approach to evaluation and treatment of women and men with complex medical and hormonal problems.   Dr. Vliet received a NECO 2014 Ellis Island Medal of Honor and the Arizona Foundation for Women 2007 Voice of Women award for her pioneering medical and educational advocacy for overlooked hormone connections in women’s health. She received her M.D. degree and internship in Internal Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, and completed specialty training at Johns Hopkins Hospital. She earned her B.S. and Master’s degrees from the College of William and Mary in Virginia. Dr. Vliet has appeared on FOX NEWS, Cavuto, Stuart Varney Show, Fox and Friends, Sean Hannity and many nationally syndicated radio shows across the country as well as numerous Healthcare Town Halls addressing the economic and medical impact of the 2010 healthcare law. Dr. Vliet is a past co-host of America’s Fabric radio show. Dr. Vliet’s health books include: It’s My Ovaries, Stupid; Screaming To Be Heard: Hormonal Connections Women Suspect– And Doctors STILL Ignore; Women, Weight and Hormones; The Savvy Woman’s Guide to Great Sex, Strength, and Stamina, and The Savvy Woman’s Guide to PCOS. Dr. Vliet’s websites are www.HerPlace.com, and www.MedExpertChile.com.  

This release was brought to you by Angel Pictures & Publicity

 

Danger: Interstate Compact Could “Fundamentally Transform” Medicine

2 Comments

new-logo25

Jane M. Orient, M.D.

While Americans are preoccupied with the political theater of the Presidential race, special interest groups toil to pass legislation that could radically transform your medical care. One example is the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which has passed in 11 states. Pennsylvania has joined a number of others in proposing it.

The proposal promises to provide “remote communities with access to high-quality care through telemedicine” and “address a shortage of medical personnel in underserved rural and urban regions,” according to an article in the Pennsylvania Business Daily.

Americans need to remember three things about proposed legislation:

  • Its real purpose is likely to be very different from the stated one, and the result may be the opposite of the one that is promised.
  • Especially when the same law is surfacing simultaneously in a number of states, some vested interest wants to make money from it. A lot of money—getting laws passed can be very expensive.
  • There may be no way back, as the law empowers and funds interest groups that will oppose repeal.

So what does the Compact do to bring telemedicine to underserved areas? By itself, nothing. It’s about a bypass to state control of licensure, not about providing care. If telemedicine were the real object, the way to expedite it would be to define the location of medical care as the location of the doctor, not the patient. The doctor would need a license in only one state. Compact proponents oppose a telemedicine bill in Congress that would do just that.

Some physicians already hold a license in several states—they just apply to each state. Under the Compact, they would apply to a private interstate commission, which would have its own rules, possibly overriding rules of the states, and which would have no public accountability. This would add costs, not eliminate them. It could also allow doctors to evade state laws meant to protect patients. For example, a carpetbagger abortionist could fly in to do late-term abortions forbidden by the state, under his Compact license. More

Be Careful about Replacing ObamaCare

1 Comment

new-logo25Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since the day the Affordable Care Act was enacted, we have been subjected to the “repeal and replace” mantra. Replacement offerings are basically slimmed down versions of the ACA. A few brave souls have proposed a straightforward repeal. Of course, such bills were merely making political hay since Obama would never sign away his namesake law.

Several GOP presidential candidates have doubled down on the misguided “repeal and replace” promise, including the yet-to-be-elucidated “Donaldcare.” But the real question is whether the ACA should be replaced at all.

Any healthcare “system” – new or old – is subject to the long arm of the federal government. Central control does not have a good track record for creative solutions, security, fraud control, administrative efficiency, or the ability to change personal habits.

The federal government has yet to figure out a way to comply with HIPAA’s twenty-year-old mandate to remove Social Security numbers from health insurance cards. Consequently, the mere possession of a Medicare card poses the risk of identity theft in our most vulnerable population.

And speaking of identity security, a core tool of the healthcare system is the electronic health record. Health “providers” seeing Medicare or Medicaid patients must have “meaningful use” of electronic records in their offices or face monetary penalties. However use of wireless networks for sensitive information requires sophisticated security measures most physician offices do not have. Moreover, even with the highest-level resources at its disposal, the federal government has failed to secure its own records.

More

King v. Burwell: The Fix Was Definitely In

3 Comments

new-logo25Richard Amerling, M.D.

________________________________________

As I predicted back in March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the administration in King v. Burwell. So I was not surprised by the decision, but that doesn’t mean I am not deeply disappointed. I am.

Beyond the ramifications for the continuation of the abominable Obamacare, the obvious truth is that we are being ruled by a corrupt oligarchy that includes the majority of the Supreme Court. This was driven home on Friday by the discovery by Justice Anthony Kennedy of a right to same-sex marriage in the “shadows and penumbras” of the Constitution, which will certainly ignite another never-ending culture war in the country.

Further legal challenges to federal over-reaching are likely to fail. There are constitutional remedies to this tyranny, as Senator Ted Cruz points out, including action by Congress to either impeach members of the Court, or to limit the Court’s jurisdiction. Neither of these options is feasible, given current lily-livered Republican leadership, and of course, a presidential veto. This leaves a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, originating either in Congress, or in a convention of the states, as specified in Article V.

We are living, as says radio host Mark Levin, in a “post-constitutional republic,” where rules and laws are concocted by a small group of elites, either unelected or elected in perpetuity by a tiny fraction of the electorate, and who are unresponsive to the will of the people.

What does this decision mean for the medical profession, and for those who depend on us for care? We are in dire straits!

Obamacare, and more recently the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) solidify bureaucratic control over the practice of medicine. We have already seen the widespread closing of private practices, with now over two-thirds of physicians working under a hospital umbrella. Those who remain private are under immense pressure, both financial and regulatory, and many will fold their tents. In addition to rigid price controls on their fees, there are never-ending requirements for documentation via the electronic health record of personal clinical details, to be used eventually to centrally direct care.

MACRA cements into place various payment schemes such as bundling, accountable care organizations (ACOs), and other forms of “payment-for-outcomes,” that will be applied to the Medicare program, and ultimately to private insurance.

All of these systems create financial disincentives to caring for truly sick patients, and will have a devastating effect. Patients will be increasingly subjected to one-size-fits-all care, dictated by algorithms inserted into the electronic health record. These will be created by professional groups, such as the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Board of Internal Medicine, and will be labeled as “evidence-based,” or “best practices.”

This will lead to even greater over-prescription of statins, anti-hypertensives, and diabetes medications, based on achieving certain numerical “targets.” Many individual patients will certainly be harmed by this approach.

To maximize revenue, physicians will dutifully click on boxes and comply with the central mandates. Thus will fade the Hippocratic ethic to render their best judgment on behalf of their patients. Over time, the medical profession will devolve from a science-based art into a trade requiring less training and less experience. Doctors are already being indoctrinated away from a commitment to individual patients and towards allegiance to the state, or to “society.” This should be of grave concern to all of us.

To defend what is left of the private, independent practice of medicine, doctors will have to “opt out” of official, government medicine, and go back to the days when we worked for, and were paid by, our patients. This will allow the continued delivery of high quality, personalized care, and the survival of Hippocratic medicine for future generations of physicians.

And given the tyrannical nature of our government, doctors need to opt out while they still can. It is not inconceivable that the federal government would, completely without authority and violating the 10th Amendment insuring state sovereignty, federalize all state medical boards. They could then institute a federal medical license, and make licensure conditional on agreeing to accept all government insurance as full payment. We need a critical mass.

And who would stop such a move? Clearly not the Roberts Court!

###

http://www.aapsonline.org/

Richard Amerling, MD (New York City) is an Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine and an academic nephrologist at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in New York. Dr. Amerling received an MD from the Catholic University of Louvain in 1981. He completed a medical residency at the New York Hospital Queens and a nephrology fellowship at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. He has written and lectured extensively on health care issues and is President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Amerling is the author of the Physicians’ Declaration of Independence and is a seasoned speaker and on-air contributor.
• Dr. Amerling on the Steve Malzberg Show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jav5QONqlw
• AAPS Director (Dr. Amerling) on Glenn Beck Show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX0WRvwaw5Y
• Dr. Richard Amerling is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in New York City and he gives Dr. Gina the facts on Ebola: http://www.politichicks.tv/2014/10/much-worry-ebola/

Will Republicans Keep the Court from Blowing Obama’s Cover?

3 Comments

 

new logoorient

 

 

by Jane M. Orient, M.D.

___________________________________________________

The Big Lie of ObamaCare is in the title: the Affordable Care Act. Administration officials invoke “affordable” over and over again.

The U.S. Supreme Court could well blow the Democrats’ cover in King v. Burwell if it rules that people in the 37 states that did not establish an Exchange cannot legally get taxpayer subsidies for health insurance.

The subsidies hide the reality. People generally look only at what they themselves have to pay. They do not care what faceless taxpayers are paying to insurance companies for their policies.

Of the 11.7 million Americans who now have private health insurance through federal and state marketplaces, 86 percent of them are receiving financial assistance from federal taxpayers to help pay premiums—or, more accurately, their insurance company is.

“More than seven million people could lose subsidies, making insurance unaffordable,” said White House officials, according to the New York Times.

These subsidies (“tax credits”) averaged $263 a month and reduced the premium by 72 percent, on average. Taxpayers who manage to earn more than a certain threshold thus have to pay 100 percent of their own premiums plus their “fair share” of 72 percent of premiums for those who earn less.

Assuming that they will be blamed for the surge in the number of uninsured, although they did not write the law, congressional Republicans are scurrying for ways to “fix” the problem of a purported “mistake” in drafting the law.

The only problem they apparently see is that people would lose coverage—not that ObamaCare drove premiums to unaffordable levels. And the only remedy they can think of is to force others to pay the unaffordable cost, at least for a time. Not having learned from vast experience, they assume that an extension of subsidies will be temporary.

One would like to see Republicans explain to the people why the whole structure of ObamaCare is a mistake, which worsens and solidifies the problems that make American medical care so costly in the first place. These are the simple, incontrovertible facts:
• Guaranteed issue/community rating always drives up premiums and leads to a “death spiral.” Unless premiums are based on risk, people have no incentive to buy insurance when they are well.
• Mandates to pay for expensive services people do not need or want help purveyors of such services but drive up premiums.
• Third-party payment itself always and everywhere drives costs far higher than people would pay if spending their own money.
• Administrative micromanagement drives up costs and limits access.
• Insurance is not the only way to buy medical care—just the most expensive way.

ObamaCare needs to be repealed. Tweaking one of the interlocking parts just makes the interconnected rest even more unworkable. If the Supreme Court exposes the true cost by removing the veil of subsidies, Republicans should not try to cover it up.

If people lose coverage, another shocking truth might be revealed, to the horror of the insurance cartel: they might be better off. The unsubsidized share of premiums—instead of being sucked into the insurer’s bank account—would be available to buy actual care, which people might now avoid because of high ObamaCare deductibles. A market might develop for true catastrophic-only insurance, with appropriately low premiums. Note that if ObamaCare insurance becomes unaffordable because of lack of subsidies, the individual mandate penalty/tax does not apply.

Of the money paid to insurers, at least 15 percent goes to administration and much more to activities like “quality assurance” that provide nothing recognizable to patients as a medical service or product. And if the insurer does pay for something, it decides exactly what, when, and how much a beneficiary might receive.

There are many alternatives to dependence on the government/insurer monolith, which the cartel would love to crush, such as health sharing ministries, direct-pay practices, and indemnity insurance. More resources are becoming available to patients (for example, medicalselfsufficiency.com and selfpaypatient.com).

Republicans should not help to suppress alternatives by propping up the ObamaCare monster and leaving the façade of subsidies intact.

###

http://www.aapsonline.org/

About the author/contributor: More

Obamacare: Death to Physicians? Suicide Rates Climb Since ACA Passed

3 Comments

new logoBy Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D

Physicians also fear losing hospital privileges if treatment for depression is disclosed. Hospital administrators increasingly use mandated psychiatric treatment as a bullying tactic to remove independent-thinking, patient-focused physicians from hospital staff.

_______________________________________________________

Chaos and disruptions in medical care have had one tragic and destructive effect that no one is addressing: the deaths of more than 2,000 physicians by suicide since Obamacare was passed by means of strong-arming and bribery.

censored doctPhysicians in general have a higher rate of suicide than other professional groups and the general public. Women physicians’ suicide rates are reported to be up to 400% higher than women in other professions. Male physicians’ rates are 50% to 70% higher.

Why are more physicians seeing suicide as their only option? The rising rate since the 2010 Affordable Care Act was passed points to the added regulatory and financial pressures from Obamacare as major factors:
• need to see more patients per hour to make ends meet
• lower payments, longer delays in being paid, and declining patient visits due to higher co-pays and deductibles
• financial stress, a known trigger for suicide, intensified by a 40 % to 50% decline in practice revenues as overhead costs go, forcing many primary-care physicians to close up their practices
• increasing administrative and paperwork burden, which takes time away from patient care, without the satisfactions of helping patients
• more generalized “one-size-fits-all” protocols demanded by insurance and government “guidelines”
• more forms, reports, and regulations that no one understands, but with huge financial penalties and even prison time for making mistakes
• demonization of “greedy doctors” by insurance companies, government, and media.

Doctors have always been at higher risk of suicide than other professions for several reasons:
• pressures of responsibility for patients’ lives
• fear of making mistakes that might cost a life or trigger a malpractice suit
• fear of losing one’s medical license and livelihood
• long hours, time away from families on nights and weekends
• high rates of unrecognized or untreated depression, alcohol or substance abuse, and divorce due to all of the above

Doctors are human too, and have feelings. I think other critically overlooked factors in the rising suicide rates since 2010 include:
• the increasing sense that doctors are just a “cog in a wheel,” interchangeable with those having less training and expertise
• feeling unappreciated by patients, who toss them aside like an old toy when insurance plans change
• frustration with patients who dismiss medical recommendations if “it is not covered by my insurance”
• loss of autonomy, control, and independence as faceless insurance clerks, bean-counters, licensing boards, and government agencies dictate how, where, and when medicine is to be practiced, with no knowledge of the patient in question.

Physicians are also often their own worst doctors and feel they can handle their own health issues and stress. There is the ever-present social stigma about seeking mental health treatment, but for physicians this is magnified by the fear of being penalized and having their medical license jeopardized if they seek treatment for depression or stress. We encourage others to seek mental health professionals if appropriate, but most physicians are afraid to do so themselves because such treatment must be reported on each medical license renewal application, increasing the risk of losing one’s license and livelihood.

Physicians also fear losing hospital privileges if treatment for depression is disclosed. Hospital administrators increasingly use mandated psychiatric treatment as a bullying tactic to remove independent-thinking, patient-focused physicians from hospital staff.

All of these problems, especially the feelings of loss of control and loss of autonomy in one’s medical decision-making, have escalated dramatically with the ever-increasing regulatory burdens under Obamacare.

A death by suicide is devastating to families, leaving emotional scars that may never heal. Physicians’ family members often have significant support to help with grief and shock, but very little attention is paid to the needs of patients, especially older patients who often have profound feelings of loss, and little support to help them through unexpected loss of a trusted physician upon whom they depended.

Most doctors go into medicine truly committed to helping people who are ill and in pain. Today, doctors are under siege with outside forces preventing them from doing the very thing that means the most: taking care of patients. The sensitive and compassionate ones have an even harder time dealing with denials of care they know their patients need.

The toll on doctors—and then patients—is getting worse daily. Insurance and government bureaucrats had best remember: at some point, we ALL will be a patient—that includes YOU.

WARNING: dead doctors cannot save your life.

### More

An American Response to Loss of ObamaCare Subsidies

Leave a comment

new logo

Jane M. Orient, M.D.

_______________________________________________________

This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court could, in King v. Burwell, uninsure 8 million Americans by finding that subsidies are illegal outside State Exchanges.

Some Republicans are saying “Let it burn.” For Democrats, it’s “ObamaCare or nothing.” Can you detect a difference? How about an American, rather than a partisan response? One that is voluntary and constitutional.

Amid the wreckage left by ObamaCare, one arrangement remains standing, exempt from the individual mandate: the healthcare sharing ministry.

obmThis offers the prospect of a solution to the real problems:
• Medical care costs too much, and so does medical insurance.
• The reason medical care costs so much is third-party payment (“comprehensive insurance”).
• ObamaCare drives costs up still more with its expensive mandates.

Instead of forcing taxpayers, present and unborn, to pay most of the unaffordable premiums, the sharing ministries can drastically reduce costs, while restoring patient control.

The fact is that Americans throw fistfuls of money out the window every month for insurance premiums for care they do not need or want. That money is gone forever. If they develop a problem, the insurer might deny them the care that is best—or, if their policy has lapsed, they might as well have been uninsured the whole time. If they had instead put the money in the bank, they would have it to spend when the need arose. More

ObamaCare Can Cancel Your Insurance, Warns Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

Leave a comment

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9

Tucson, AZ 85716

 

March 10, 2015

Tucson, AZ. One of the biggest selling points for the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ObamaCare) was the promise that insurers couldn’t cancel your plan if you get sick. But if the U.S. Supreme Court, in King v. Burwell, holds premium subsidies to be illegal in Exchanges not established by States, the Administration will allow insurers to abrogate their contracts, says the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

“It’s déjà vu all over again,” states AAPS executive director Jane M. Orient, M.D. “When Medicare passed, seniors who had private insurance lost it. The insurers told President Johnson that they couldn’t unilaterally cancel subscribers’ contracts. But LBJ said they could cancel all the contracts, and they did. Private insurance for seniors was ended with a stroke.”

“While the Administration assures HealthCare.gov policyholders that ‘nothing has changed,’ it has been conveying a contradictory message to health insurance companies,” writes Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in a letter to former CMS head Marilyn Tavenner. “Late last year, CMS altered the agreements to participate in the federal exchange, guaranteeing insurance companies the right to pull out of their contracts should federal subsidies such as the APTC come to an end—in other words, if the Administration loses before the Supreme Court.”

The Administration apparently has a contingency plan to protect insurers, Orient notes, but what about patients? “Millions lost their existing plans, which they liked, when ACA forced them to be pulled from the market. People had to buy an ACA-compliant replacement plan, usually much more expensive, and they could now lose that too.”

“What will be left?” AAPS asks. “Will Congress repeal ObamaCare and all its impossible mandates on insurers and the medical system? Or will Americans be forced into Obama’s preferred system of total dependence on government—and its completely untrustworthy promises?”

Sen. Hatch has demanded documents from CMS so that the Senate Finance Committee can conduct oversight.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) and other Republicans are proposing transition plans such as the Winding Down Obamacare Act, which are intended to protect patients from loss of insurance, and to prevent the Administration from exerting coercive pressure on States to establish Exchanges that would further cement ObamaCare in place.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties, founded in 1943 to preserve private medicine and the patient-physician relationship. More

MEDI-GATE: THE TRUTH BEHIND AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE AND THE BITTER PILL

2 Comments

new-logo25Chuck Frank
lightofthenation.us

___________________________________________________

Barry Blake lived with his mother who owned her own home and was covered under Medicaid. When she died, the state of Kentucky “took the house … to be sold and pay those expenses” according to a suit Blake filed to recover it in 2009. The state also took the washer and dryer, their lawn mower, gardening tools, kitchen appliances and other personal items. 

__________________________________________

 

Surprise, Surprise! There’s a dirty little secret attached to every Affordable Health Care mandate if the plan is “subsidized” by the government. It’s called the “asset recovery” plan which is part of the “Affordable” Health Care Act. Essentially asset or estate recovery, in the end, could mean the loss of your house. More

US Government Moves on Nationwide Adult Vaccination

Leave a comment

Mandatory Vaccination for Adults: Wasn’t this one of those internet “myths”?

8 Comments

strip bannernew-logo25Marti Oakley

_____________________________________

What Will Be Considered Mandatory
The Federal Government’s proposed mandatory health insurance will mean mandatory vaccinations/immunizations. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) says that for anyone who refuses to keep up-to-date vaccinations, under the new health reform, you will not be able to obtain any health care you may need until immunizations are current.

_________________________________________

The federal mandate forcing vaccinations against your will, has now been entered into the Federal Register. You have until March 9, 2015 to comment before they arbitrarily enter this as a new “law”.

Bear in mind that no matter how many of us object to this assault on our 59203_518492681544067_1036204037_npersons, the end result is that they WILL register this as “law”. The entry into the federal register is simply a formality that allows them to gauge just how much interest and opposition there is to what they are planning. As we have seen in the past regarding other issues, comments expressing opposition to their plans are purged from the comments section by the thousands. Do not let this deter you. If your comment is scrubbed, comment again.

Read the full draft here and then post your comments:

Solicitation of Written Comments on the Draft National Adult Immunization Plan
The Daily Journal of the United States Government
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/06/2015-02481/solicitation-of-written-comments-on-the-draft-national-adult-immunization-plan

Bear in mind, that because this is part of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Congress, their staffs, government employees, including those attempting to pass this into law through rule-making agencies, are all exempt from these rules. The very people implementing this have been guaranteed that they will not be subject to it.

The very fact that the Constitution demands that all laws be applied equally, and, the fact that congress exempted themselves and so many others from it in violation of that demand, makes this “law” null and void as if it had never existed.  Yet, the Supreme Court decided to ignore that in its ruling.

This begs the question: “If vaccines are so safe and effective, why wouldn’t those attempting to pass this into law be the first to line up to receive vaccines?” Have you noticed that none of the public officials, not one congressman or even the president has made any indication that they have, or will, get vaccinated, against anything? Neither have any of those who are attempting to pass this rule (law). More

What Made You Think Medicare Was “Free” Insurance?

6 Comments

strip bannernew-logo25Marti Oakley

______________________________________________

It is alarming to hear not only younger members of the country, but also some middle aged members, medical professionals and others, referring to Medicare as some kind of free, gravy train medical insurance that seniors don’t have to pay for. Are people really that ignorant of how this system works?

After paying into Social Security and Medicare for decades, those who 1619098_10202643451221752_1414455253_nreceive medicare must also now pay a premium every month for this insurance. These premiums can range from a few hundred dollars a month, to several hundred. Married couples pay individual premiums which can amount to $700.00 per month or more, combined on average. These premiums are deducted from their Social Security checks; neither the government, nor taxpayers, pay this premium.

Then there is that handy-dandy “donut hole” where Medicare pays nothing. This was a huge gift to the insurance companies who whined about not getting a piece of the Medicare pie. From approximately the $2500.00 to $5000.00 costs of care, Medicare pays for nothing. Ta DA! We got your GAP insurance plan which will cost you another $200.00 per month at least. This will cover the costs incurred in the hole. Of course the insurance companies have no plans to make good on these GAP policies, so getting them to pay any percentage of anything is a monumental task.

Then there is the co-pay at your doctors office. Then the co-pay on medications. Then there are the costs of medications your insurance and Medicare don’t/won’t pay for. That comes right out of your pocket!

Now, to add insult to injury, an estimated 20 million illegal aliens will be given “free” healthcare and I have yet to hear the word “entitlement” attached to those benefits.

More

The State of My Union

1 Comment

strip banner

new-logo25By Richard Amerling, M.D.

Satire

______________________________________________

“In closing, allow me to quote from my friend and mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright: ‘God damn America.’ Goodnight.”

___________________________________________________

Our clandestine agent in the White House has obtained a first draft of President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union address to Congress. We were told that Mr. Obama wrote this himself, though we cannot be certain. Somehow we doubt that Valerie Jarrett will permit much of this to reach 10-15-2013-5-26-05-PMthe President’s TelePrompTer.

“My Americans, my Members, my Press, my guests, welcome to the halls of my Congress. With two short years remaining in what many of you think is my last term as president, there is much yet for me to accomplish. After winning in 2008, I promised to fundamentally transform the nation. I am well on my way, but I am not yet there. FDR, who was the most successful nation-transformer before me, had four terms and a compliant Congress. Now that those of you sitting on the right side of the aisle nominally control Congress, my task is harder, and may require an additional term or two as president. The Office of Legal Counsel and the Attorney General are looking into ways we can make that happen. More

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: