Michael Moore recently pontificated that under Obamacare Americans would have to wait for certain non life-threatening procedures such as a knee replacement. In his mind a “patriotic American” would be happy to do so. If one takes a critical look at socialized healthcare it would be obvious that it doesn’t work. In the UK, the healthcare system is so strapped for money that it is considering outsourcing the management of it to a German company. It is criminal that we would alter our medical system to emulate one that is obviously broken. Despite the pronouncements of healthcare equality we are rapidly moving towards a two tier system that is separate and unequal – those who have the means to do so will simply opt-out.

It is the insertion of Government into the healthcare system that has put us in the position we are in. Cronyism has given corporate interests such as big Pharma, medical insurance companies and hospitals the power to systematically remove competition, control prices and lead to the too big to fail phenomenon that has left doctors and patients on the outside looking in while those who know ‘what is best for us’ continue to gut what was once the best medical system in the world.  The medical insurance industry is an example of a supporter that helped lobby for the passage of Obamacare that has been a big winner.

(more…)

ATLANTA (AP) – A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn’t go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.

The states and other critics argued the law violates people’s rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a “quintessential” power.

The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that “the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power.”

“What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die,” the opinion said. (more…)

Since the healthcare reform legislation passed, the discussion has centered on the fear of a government takeover of healthcare, but maybe this should not be the focus. Perhaps we should be worried about a corporate takeover of healthcare.

HIPPA (Health Information Portable Accountability Act) was signed into law in 1996 ostensibly to protect a patient’s privacy. It involved “covered entities” such as physicians, administrators who administer health plans for employers, and anyone who is involved in transactions including business associates. Over time it has evolved into a legal club that consists of fines and or jail time that can be used to punish those who have been deemed to violate the rule. The Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 gives the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services the power to determine the amount of fines and whether civil penalties will be applied to those who violate HIPPA.  As with many other tenants of Obamacare, this was not present within the healthcare reform bill. It is simply another example of a legislative sleight of hand that makes it easier to slide in questionable pieces of legislation that may not be popular by distracting with one hand while the other is doing the dirty work.

If the over 700 waivers to the healthcare mandate granted by Secretary Sebelius to big corporations such as Waffle House and Foot Locker, and supporters of  Obamacare such as Aetna, Cigna and the SEIU are any indication, those who oppose the administration need to watch their backs. Dr Milton Wolf wrote an article for The Washington Times (The Tawdry Details of Obamacare) that provides an excellent synopsis of the privileged treatment bestowed upon friends of the administration. Clearly, this highlights what the president said about rewarding friends. Those who are not lucky enough to receive these waivers will have the thankless task of being under the mandate yolk and therefore picking up the tab. In the age where the government constantly talks about ‘fairness’ how fair is that?  It is yet another example of rules that are applied unequally.

Now that the cozy relationship between Google and the government has been brought to light it leads one to wonder what other favors will Google be granted?

(more…)

In his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, the President joked about the fact that House Republicans have repealed the Healthcare law, and affirmed his commitment to his administration’s signature piece of legislation.

Just one day later, however, the fate of the same Healthcare law appears more doubtful, perhaps, than the President and the Democrats imagined.

According to Foxnews.com, Medicare’s Chief Actuary Richard Foster told House Budget Committee members on Wednesday that the two central premises of the Healthcare law, upon which the President and Democrats have been defending the law, are not likely to come to fruition.

Foster responded to two “True-False” questions, posed by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-California): 1) whether the law will keep down healthcare costs; and 2) whether the law will allow people to keep their health insurance if they choose.

Foster responded, “I would say false, more so than true,” to the question about costs, and “Not true, in all cases,” to the question about keeping coverage.

(more…)

The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives has begun the process of repealing the Healthcare law. Some have argued that, because the Senate may not repeal it as well, and the President will likely veto it, the House’s repeal is purely “symbolic.”

Just as the reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House, on Wednesday, was symbolic of a “return to constitutionalism,” as Charles Krauthammer writes, the repeal of the Healthcare law in the House will be symbolic not just of the fact that Republicans have heard the will of the American people, but also that they fully understand that the new law is, only superficially, a jumbled and thoughtless mess of rules about how healthcare should be delivered and paid for in this country. In reality, the Healthcare law is a liberal power grab that is gradually permitting the federal government to control more of our lives, making more people dependent upon the government and continuing the culture of dependency among minority groups who, up until now, have mostly voted liberals into power. The symbolism of the repeal will ring loud and clear.

Liberal Democrats will be launching a big campaign over the next few days, doing what they always accuse Republicans and conservatives of doing- “fear-mongering.”  They will be telling their constituents that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the repeal of the Healthcare law will increase debt, that Republicans don’t want people with pre-existing conditions to have access to health insurance, and that Republicans want to defund Medicare, new chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan, has set out why these claims are wrong.

However, one of the features of the new Healthcare law, already in effect, is the extension of healthcare coverage to adult children (up until 26 years old), a hallmark of the true intention of this law- to make more people dependent, while it raises premiums on private health insurers who need more money to meet this new requirement.

(more…)

While the new Congress deliberates over ways to repeal or defund the Obama Administration’s “healthcare reform” law, twenty states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), have filed suit in federal court arguing that the law is unconstitutional and should be struck down immediately. This is the largest of several legal challenges to Obamacare across the country.

Lawyers for NFIB and the states will appear in a Pensacola, Florida federal court this Thursday, December 16th.  They will ask U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson to rule that the heart of the law – and “individual mandate” that obligates private citizens to obtain health insurance whether they want it or not – is unconstitutional.  NFIB and the states will accordingly ask that Judge Vinson to strike down Obamacare in its entirety.

The Constitution does not allow Congress to force Americans to purchase a product solely because they are alive and the federal government’s claim of such authority contradicts more than two hundred years of Supreme Court precedent.  Yet the individual mandate, which would obligate private citizens to obtain health insurance whether they want it or not, does just that.

Counsel for NFIB and the states will make the following arguments:

1) The Individual Mandate in Unconstitutional

Under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate people when they engage in an economic activity that affects interstate commerce.

The Obama Administration argues that choosing not to purchase something (like a health insurance policy) is somehow an “activity” that affects the economy.  The federal government’s theory that a decision to do nothing is “activity” that may be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause is unprecedented. The Administration’s lawyers have been unable to identify a single pre-Obamacare decision upholding a law that forces a private individual to enter into a market for goods or services against their will.

(more…)

The implementation of the healthcare reform bill that was passed in March has now begun. Unfortunately, it is becoming obvious that the promises made such as: a) you can keep your physician and medical plan if you like them; b) your healthcare costs will go down; c) there will be no healthcare rationing; and d) everyone will be covered simply were not true.

We were fed a steady diet of fear, distraction and falsehoods to sell healthcare reform.

• We were told that unless something was done healthcare costs would bankrupt the country

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report admitting that the actual cost of the healthcare system would be far higher than was initially estimated  - a cost of more than 1 trillion dollars

• We were told that healthcare premiums would decrease for families

The CBO report estimates that the cost of healthcare premiums would go up by $2100 for the average family next year

• We were told that if we liked our health insurance and doctor we could keep them

Thousands of Medicare recipients from Massachusetts to Maine will lose supplemental insurance through Medicare advantage thereby increasing there healthcare costs exponentially.

• There will be no healthcare rationing

The choice of Donald Berwick speaks for itself. He is a champion of the British model of socialized one size fits all medicine. It is a broken system that is based on rationing of care that is collapsing under its own weight.

There have also been examples of nascent rationing here in the US. e.g, in Colorado the cancer drug Avastin is not covered by Medicare although it is covered in other states. In addition, the effectiveness of screening tools such as mammograms are being questioned. It is likely that these studies will eventually be used to argue that mammograms are not effective and therefore will not be covered by insurance.

(more…)

President Obama signed into law what will surely be known as one of the worst pieces of public policy in American history.  His big-government takeover of America’s healthcare system passed against the will of many Americans.  It marks a loss for liberty and a victory for greater government control.

The Democrats rejected bipartisan input and compromise to pass this misguided legislation along a narrow, partisan vote.  They hit us with a bloated, constitutionally-suspect bill that grows government and fails to achieve the reforms necessary to constrain the costs of American health care.  The bill not only forces intolerable new costs on consumers and state budgets during an economic downturn, it fails to include basic protections against illegal immigrants in the system.

Consumers will bear the burden of higher health insurance premiums and health care costs, in addition to an onerous federal mandate that will require residents to have health insurance, whether they want it or not.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2016, premiums in the individual market will be 10 percent to 13 percent higher under the health care bill than they would have been under current law.  The chief actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that, overall, the bill will increase health care spending by $222 billion over the next ten years.

Californians will also have to bear the burden of an enormous new strain on state finances.  The health care bill achieves expanded health coverage in part by radically enlarging the Medicaid program.  State governments pay a substantial portion of Medicaid’s costs.  The chief deputy director for California’s health care programs has stated the bill’s Medicaid provisions will add an additional $2 billion to $3 billion to the state budget annually.  Our state has already been struggling to close a $20 billion budget gap.  Now the health care bill will force us to pay for expansion of a program riddled with waste and abuse.

(more…)

In modern day America, if you criticize the government you are now fair game to be called upon to explain yourself in front of it.  As Byron York reported in a recent Washington Examiner column, Rep. Henry Waxman sent letters to executives of major corporations such as Verizon and Caterpillar, requesting their testimony at hearings of the Subcomittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by none other than Rep. Bart Stupak, as each of the companies “announced that provisions in the [healthcare] law could adversely affect” their “ability to provide health insurance.”  AT&T for instance had disclosed in an SEC form that changes in the tax treatment of a Medicare subsidy would lead to a $1 billion write-off in earnings from the first quarter of 2010, and said it was considering changes to the health care benefits it provides for its employees.

That the legislation would negatively affect the earnings of these corporations and potentially hamper their ability to provide healthcare is for Rep. Waxman “a matter of concern,” as the “new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs.”

But I wonder, for whom are the negative effects of this legislation really a concern?  For Rep. Waxman and his fellow Democrats who already forced the egregious bill on the public?  For the private enterprises pummeled seemingly on a daily basis by these same politicians?  Perhaps for the American people faced with all kinds of economy-crippling unintended consequences as a result of the legislation, on top of the higher costs and worse healthcare they will ultimately receive?

(more…)

An unlikely power figure has emerged in the Obama Administration. He’s not a great orator, nor trendy, nor well-known.  But, if the ability to influence national leaders, shape a national agenda and influence public opinion are indicators, then, Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is, arguably, the most powerful and,  potentially, most dangerous, man in Washington, DC.

As Director of OMB, Peter Orszag is the arbiter of all financial information shared with Congress.  A series of little-known, OMB “circulars”, such as A-11, have established the rules, and repercussions if violated, by which Executive branch agencies communicate with Congress, especially regarding budgets, funding and agency priorities.

OMB, the President’s gatekeeper for budget matters, executes a complicated juggling act, balancing Obama Administration priorities and budgetary spin, against agency needs.   Frequently, to secure a critical vote, an elected member may be rewarded with a pork project for the folks back home, and, often, it’s the OMB director that has to figure out how to avoid the appearance of a bald-faced bribe, while manipulating CBO scoring on infrastructure projects.  Orszag, as the former head of CBO, understands exactly how this game is played.  Thus, most of the project and budget information that Congress reviews have been shaped by OMB’s preferences.

Peter Orszag controls much of the content and quantity of the data flow to Congress, to the President and to American citizens.  Orszag has oversight over most of the federal government’s critical data reporting structures.  Apart from the ineffective and error-prone Stimulus reporting sites (data.gov, recovery.gov),, OMB oversees federal contract opportunities and federal grants.

(more…)

Well, the Democrats finally found an enemy they were willing to commit whatever it takes to defeat. Unfortunately for them this enemy was the American people. While I agree with those who assert that this bill will be difficult to reverse, this nation achieved its greatness only through the steadfast refusal of patriots to surrender to the forces of tyranny and oppression throughout our history. Let there be no mistake, in enacting this legislation the President and his allies have chosen the path of tyranny. By resorting to back-room dealmaking, the blatant payoff of special interests, and every legislative contravention imaginable, Democrats have set in motion the largest seizure of power by the federal government since the New Deal, if not our history. All at the expense of personal liberty and free enterprise, and against the clearly expressed will of the vast majority of Americans.

But this bill will not stand.

Not if freedom-loving Americans have anything to say about it, and they will starting this November. It may not happen in one fell swoop, but this assault against liberty can and will be reversed.

For everyone who has stood so passionately against this legislation for the past year, this is our main solace. But we should also take pride in the success of our opposition to this point. Clearly Democrats were ultimately willing to do anything and everything necessary to pass this bill. This outcome was predetermined when the President and Democratic leadership retained the right to use reconciliation from the very beginning of the legislative process.

Given the popularity of the President coming into office, and the overwhelming majorities his party enjoyed in Congress, no one could have anticipated the immense difficulty they would have in reaching this point. We drove them to the very brink of defeat, and in doing so we exposed the raw corruption and insatiable desire for power which will prove to be their undoing.

(more…)

Here’s budget director Peter Orszag writing on his White House blog yesterday:

Recently, a lot of attention has been paid to a claim that this deficit reduction is achieved only through a business-as-usual Washington budget gimmick: paying for just a few years of costs with many more years of savings.

This charge is simply false—and let’s get the facts straight.

• First, it’s true that loading savings up front and costs in later years is a time-honored budget gimmick. It has a single purpose—to hide the ball and make programs look paid for in the near term that will in fact substantially add to the deficit over the long-term.

• Second, it’s also true that some of savings under the health plan start sooner than the major costs in the legislation. We can move quickly to begin identifying waste and improving quality in the current health care system, as well as make certain reforms to rebalance the tax code. But, the major coverage expansion does not occur until 2014, in part because we need to take time to establish a system of state-based exchanges through which private insurance companies will provide quality insurance to those not getting it through their employer. Still, it is important to note that the vast majority of the savings in the next ten years occur in 2014 and thereafter.

• Third, this is not a budget gimmick. The purpose the tried-and-true gimmick described above is to make a proposal that adds to long-term deficits appear fiscally responsible. But if that were the course we were taking, we would expect to see a large fiscal hole at the end of the first decade and larger and larger deficits in the second decade. Instead, over the long-term, the savings under the President’s plan are expected to grow faster than the costs. So, when the Congressional Budget Office is done with its scoring, we expect it will find that the President’s plan reduces deficits by roughly $100 billion in the first 10 years and roughly $1 trillion in the decade after that. In other words, health reform should reduce the deficit by growing amounts over the long-term.

Put simply: Health reform will reduce the deficit in this decade, and it will reduce the deficit by even more thereafter. There’s no gimmick in that.

(more…)

The President’s health care proposal this morning includes an FAQ section for various audiences – seniors, small business owners, the uninsured, etc. Here is one of the questions and answers for individuals who currently purchase insurance directly on the individual market (click for source):

I fall into this category myself, and it is a pretty important question for a couple of reasons. One, because there are an increasing number of individuals and families (18+ million) who buy health insurance coverage on the open market as opposed to receiving it through an employer. Secondly, because everyone, including the millions currently uninsured, would be legally required to have some form of insurance based on the mandate included in the President’s proposal and both the House and Senate bills

Obviously it would not help the cause of Democrats trying to pass this bill if the millions of people who buy insurance directly, and the millions more who are forced to do so by the insurance mandate, end up paying even higher premiums than they would under current law.

But here’s the thing – many of them will. At least according to the CBO. And the White House is deliberately and irresponsibly misleading the public by claiming otherwise.

(more…)

Did you ever wonder exactly what evidence-based medicine is? The National Center for Clinical Excellence bases it in on the philosophy “that as much medical practice as possible ought to be carried out using proven algorithms based on empirically valid evidence from controlled scientific experiments, rather than individual clinical judgment.”

Congressional health care reform relies heavily on both Evidence-based guidelines and evidence-based individual decision making to set the standards of care for medical treatment and outcomes. In fact, House bill 3962, in an effort to control costs, creates a new layer of government bureaucracy that inserts itself between the doctor and the patient. A national health commissioner and task forces will evaluate and decide everything from what medications a physician will be allowed to prescribe for a patient, to what surgery will be approved, to what outcomes will be expected for a particular medical condition. The ‘universal healthcare Czar’ along with the task forces will also decide whether or not hospitals will be reimbursed for care rendered based on predetermined outcomes. For example, if a patient is re-admitted within a prescribed number of days after discharge, the hospital will not be reimbursed for care given. It does not take into account factors such as how ill a patient may be. This new layer of government effectively removes the power of the individual physician and patient to decide what is the best course of treatment.

Why should you care?

(more…)

In a recent article published in The Atlantic Jonathan Gruber, an economist from MIT was enthused over the Senate’s healthcare bill because of its kitchen sink approach to the problem of rising healthcare costs. “I can’t think of a thing to try that they didn’t try. They really make the best effort anyone has ever made. Everything is in here….I can’t think of anything I’d do that they are not doing in the bill.” This quote is a distillation of the problem I have with the whole healthcare reform effort. It seems like a case of throw it up on a wall and see if it sticks.

From the beginning of the debate and the resultant bills in Congress there has been no thought put into the root cause of the high cost of healthcare. As usual the players who were allowed to sit at the table were the ones who had the most to lose if the status quo really changed. Special interest groups (i.e., unions, hospitals corporation, medical insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry, and the AMA) each flooded Washington with money and controlled both the argument, and the perceived solutions for the mess that has become our healthcare system. At no point were physicians on the front line who deliver patient care or patients who are victims of the health insurance maze given a voice in the process let alone a seat at the table.

(more…)

On August 31, I headed to the health care town hall meeting of my congressional representative, Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). I suspected that she planned to stack the meeting with paid organizers, after she vowed on Real Time with Bill Maher to bring “millions” of people into the streets to support the so-called “public option.” So I brought a video camera.

A friend and I took turns filming protesters on both sides of the issue. We caught an organizer from the group Health Care for America Now (HCAN) instructing followers to block dissenting views: “So if they stand up and start asking questions, and you’re in that area, simply stand up, and start chanting… ‘Health care now! Health care now!’”

(more…)