Home

What The Election Means To Your Medical Care

Leave a comment

October 16th, 2018              For Immediate Release!

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

Interview – Contact Dr. Orient directly at (520) 323-3110

Preview: People are marching with “Health Care Voter” signs, and this is generally believed to be one of the most important issues in the 2018 midterm elections. Republicans who got elected on the promise to repeal ObamaCare, and reneged, may now get unelected. Voters who supported them are dissatisfied, and Democrats demand still more government involvement in medicine.

On Twitter, #HealthCareVoter posts warned that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court would “rip health care away from people with pre-existing conditions.” This illustrates several profound misunderstandings.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

by: Jane M. Orient, M.D.

People are marching with “Health Care Voter” signs, and this is generally believed to be one of the most important issues in the 2018 midterm elections. Republicans who got elected on the promise to repeal ObamaCare, and reneged, may now get unelected. Voters who supported them are dissatisfied, and Democrats demand still more government involvement in medicine.

On Twitter, #HealthCareVoter posts warned that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court would “rip health care away from people with pre-existing conditions.” This illustrates several profound misunderstandings.

By “health care,” most seem to mean health “insurance”—usually a prepaid health plan, which is not at all the same as medical care. The Supreme Court already decided that it is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause to force people to buy a commercial product. Remember stare decisis? Would it be ok to overturn the ACA decision, just not Roe v. Wade? More

Advertisements

“Coverage” Isn’t “Care”

1 Comment

Contributor & author: Dr. Keith Smith, medical director, CEO and managing partner of The Surgery Center of Oklahoma and Member of the AAPS. See Dr. Smith’s bio at the bottom of this page.

Interview – Contact:  g.keithsmithmd@gmail.com or phone Dr. Smith directly at 405-627-0274

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

Preview: 

  • if you have “coverage” and are low on funds, you should always ask the “cash” price for a service before revealing that you actually have “coverage.”
  • Perhaps the only gift of Obamacare was that the deductibles were very high and very few physicians or facilities actually signed contracts with these plans. This created a vigorous cash market, where patients who are “covered” but without benefit, could negotiate cash prices with physicians and facilities for the care they needed.
  • Medicare has criminalized charity, as demonstrated in a recent case of a Medicare beneficiary with a broken ankle who is stuck in a wheelchair because she can’t come up with her $2,000 deductible.
  • Leave it to government to force the purchase of this “coverage.” All who have been victimized by this cronyism have earned a seat on the #metoo bandwagon.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

January 16th, 2018

“Coverage” Isn’t “Care”

by G. Keith Smith, M.D.

If you are following health-related topics on social media you have likely encountered “coverage is not care,” as a theme or #hashtag. This phrase/quip should be viewed as an opportunity and lens through which the dysfunction of the crony-dominated “healthcare system” in this country can be viewed.

Not only is “coverage” not equivalent to “care,” “coverage” can and many times does create a barrier to care.

It might shock you to learn that the “cash” price for many medications at your local pharmacy is less than the co-pay if you are using your “coverage” to buy these same medications. In other words, you are better off claiming to be uninsured when you buy certain pharmaceuticals! Why is this? Your “coverage” represents an additional, contracted layer—a toll booth—through which the exchange between you and the pharmacist must take place. This toll to pharmacy benefit companies/wholesalers is removed from the purchase if you represent yourself as uninsured. The presence of this middleman/distributor can and does increase the price of pharmaceuticals dramatically, representing as much as 50% of the purchase price for a large number of medications.

The same goes for the care at many physician offices. Any physician who is contracted with insurance companies labors under their fee schedules, any departure from which risks expulsion from the “network.” Physicians who waive all or part of deductibles for patients or treat cash-strapped patients free of charge run the risk of running afoul of these same “network” contracts and may also face legal action. What gives? More

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

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: