Recently in Health Care Category

The trend of physicians no longer accepting health insurance is spreading, with even more of them switching over to cash-only practices. I mentioned one Minnesota doctor who made the switch and is glad she did.

Now comes the story of Dr. Brian Forrest, his practice in North Carolina, and how he shed the frustrations and costs of dealing with health insurance companies, all to the betterment of his patients and his bottom line.

In an age of family physicians literally not being able to give away their practices, Brian Forrest has built a successful model that is similar to the age of Marcus Welby where there was a direct relationship between a patient and their doctor. Practices such as Forrest's Access Healthcare in North Carolina run unencumbered by insurance hassles.

As word of Dr. Forrest's direct pay practice has spread, he has had a constant stream of physicians visiting his practice so others could learn how he has a successful financial model, happy patients and a sane lifestyle - something increasingly less common in the hamster-wheel model of primary care that is prevalent in current fee-for-service based primary care practices. Dr. Forrest runs a cash-only practice sees 16 patients a day at a maximum, works a 40 hour week and takes home more than the average family physician a year with a highly satisfied patient base that pays less than those in fee-for-service, insurance models.

It's gotten to the point where the cost of accepting health insurance by primary care practices has become burdensome, both financially and in time, with doctors working long hours, seeing 40 patients a day or more, becoming detached from their patients because of time constraints, and being less well compensated for their time. Too many primary care practices have become nothing more than 'factory' medicine, much to the detriment of both health care professionals and their patients. Is it any wonder more doctors are abandoning the present model of medical practices and returning to older, more personal and satisfying models?

I can see that we have yet another "I don't take any kind of health insurance" medical practice that appears to be doing well.

A doctor in Minnesota has borrowed a page from other doctors around the US that have abandoned the endlessly more complicated (and expensive) system of health insurance covered health care. Instead all she will accept is cash, checks, and foodstuffs.

It's amazing how much costs go down when you no longer have to deal with the paperwork and regulations imposed by health insurance companies and the government if a medical practice accepts health insurance (and particularly Medicare and Medicaid).

As Minnesota Public Radio reports, Dr. Susan Rutten Wasson finds she's doing just fine without all the extra dross that comes with accepting medical insurance.

It's more a scene from the days of frontier medicine than from the modern health care system. And that's because Rutten Wasson, 42, is a throwback to a time before HMOs, electronic health records and hospitals with fountains in their lobbies. She sees patients the same day they call if she's not booked up, spends at least a half-hour per visit -- compared to the more typical 15 minutes -- and usually charges only $50 for a consultation. She takes cash or check, but no insurance -- and sometimes accepts gratuities of a dozen fresh eggs or a pie.

--snip--

In an era of high overhead, ever more byzantine regulations and payment models, cuts to Medicaid and Medicare benefits, and large medical systems swallowing independent practices, Rutten Wasson relishes her straight-forward manner of practicing. Since many federal health care reforms -- such as those requiring electronic medical records -- are tied to Medicare, they tend not to apply to her.

As she says, not having to deal with the insurance is a big time saver, allowing her more time to actually spend with patients, something that is becoming more important as even with more sophisticated medical technology at our beck and call, doctors still need to talk with patients and get to know them in order to do a better job diagnosing and treating them.

"Factory" medical clinics that so many of us go to are more like an assembly line, with doctors rushing about, seeing them for the minimum amount of time possible, before rushing out to see the next one. It isn't uncommon for some physicians to see as many as 40 patients in a day, meaning they can't possibly give the time and attention some patients need in order to be treated properly for their medical conditions. If you miss an appointment don't count on getting another one for months. I had to reschedule my annual physical due to a schedule conflict. That was three months ago and they still haven't been able to tell me when I'll be able to get another appointment. If I had to guess, it won't be until next year. And if I'm actually sick, they might be able to squeeze me in in two or three weeks.

Think I'm kidding?

After our return from a week's vacation in Florida two years ago, I came down with a bad case of bronchitis which swiftly turned into pneumonia. I called my doctor's office and they said they might be able to see me in week. It got so bad I ended up at our local hospital's ER. The physician there said I probably wouldn't have lasted long enough to see my own doctor. It took a lot of antibiotics and another week before I was well enough to return to work.

But if I had a doctor like Dr. Susan Rutten Wasson, chances are she would have come to my home, examined me, and written a prescription for what I needed, as well as make a follow up visit a couple of days later. I don't see anything like that happening under the present system or ObamaCare. Do you?

Has the next in a series of death blows been visited upon ObamaCare? If the recent decision by Federal Judge Roger Vinson striking down ObamaCare is any indicator, then the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

As Judge Vinson took pains to emphasize, the case is not really about health care at all, or the wisdom--we would argue the destructiveness--of the newest entitlement. Rather, the Florida case goes to the core of the architecture of the American system, and whether there are any remaining limits on federal control. Judge Vinson's 78-page ruling in favor of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, among others, is by far the best legal vindication to date of Constitutional principles that form the outer boundaries of federal power.

ObamaCare mandated every citizen must buy health insurance in order to remain a citizen on good standing, in effect forcing people into an economic activity - buying a service from a provider whether they want to or not - and justifying it under the Commerce Clause. The judge wasn't buying it, nor the governments claim that even inactivity is really economic activity, particularly in light of the fact that citizens can't buy health insurance across state lines, therefore the activity isn't considered interstate commerce. (In case you aren't aware, the Commerce Clause in the constitution deals with regulating interstate commerce as a means of preventing one state from putting up barriers to trade with other states.) The government really tried to stretch the meaning of the Commerce Clause into areas it was never meant to cover.

Ironically, congressional Democrats of the 111^th Congress may have laid the foundations of the law's own destruction.

Judge Vinson also went beyond the Virginia case in striking down the entire ObamaCare statute--paradoxically, an act of judicial modesty. Democrats intentionally left out a "severability" clause if one part of the bill was struck down, and the Administration repeatedly argued that the individual mandate was "essential" to the bill's goals and mechanisms and compared it to "a finely crafted watch." Judge Vinson writes that picking and choosing among thousands of sections would be "tantamount to rewriting a statute in an attempt to salvage it."

As such, severability allows for one portion of a statute in question to be struck down as unconstitutional without affecting the rest of it. Without it, if one portion is struck down, the entire statute is struck down. Should Judge Vinson's decision survive appeal, and if required, Supreme Court review, ObamaCare will be dead.

So much for Nancy Pelosi's dismissal of ObamaCare's constitutionality.

Vinson went deeper, also addressing the backdoor use of the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify the government's actions.

Judge Vinson flatly rejected the administration's attempt to escape the restrictions of the Commerce Clause by appealing to the Necessary and Proper Clause. His decision acknowledges that, while reforming an insurance market is a regulation of commerce, Congress cannot artificially create its own "free rider" crisis in the insurance market and then use that crisis to justify an otherwise unconstitutional mandate as "necessary and proper" to save the market from collapse.

So, in effect what the government was trying to do was create a health care crisis, and then use that crisis to implement control over the health care system. It sounds almost like the old Mob "protection" racket: "Gee, that's a nice health care system you've got there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it...." It's almost like something out of The Untouchables. (Hey, didn't that take place in Chicago? And isn't Obama a creation of the Chicago political machine? I'm just sayin'....)

The decision has affected at least one state not part of the suit.

Here in New Hampshire, Republican House leaders have called on the Executive Council to reject a proposed $610,675 consulting contract that would lay the groundwork for implementing the provisions of ObamaCare.

...Gov. John Lynch (sic) press secretary Colin Manning said the council may not get the chance to take up the contract at their meeting -- it could be pulled from the agenda by Lynch or withdrawn from consideration by Insurance Commissioner Roger Sevigny.

"My understanding is that it will not come up for a vote," Manning said late Tuesday.

If the council does vote to reject the contract, Lynch cannot override the vote.

While the previously Democrat majority legislature and Executive Council would have likely gone along with this effort, the present legislature - a heavy GOP super-majority in both the House and Senate - and the all Republican Executive Council, are likely to block any action or funding for such an effort, particularly in light of Judge Vinson's decision. With a return to fiscal sanity in Concord, it is highly unlikely the legislature or the council will go along with something that will eventually lead to millions being added to the budget deficit already facing the state.

It seems ObamaCare is on the path to a well deserved death.

UPDATE: David Harsanyi delves into the claims by the White House that Judge Vinson's decision was nothing more than judicial activism.

Writes Harsanyi:

Co-opting conservative terms like "judicial activism" is a cute way of trying to turn the tables on those who have some reverence for the original intent of the Founders.

--snip--

Vinson may be overruled, but his decision is cogent and persuasive and doesn't seek out excuses for abuse. His ruling asks for the kind of government restraint that judges rarely have the appetite to call for, even though, need I remind you, "judicial activism" in the defense of liberty is no vice.

Apparently judicial activism is only proper when a decision expands the power of progressives working to weaken individual rights in favor of more control by the state, ignoring the Constitution or creating new rights out of thin air.

OK, run this by me one more time.

How is it by eliminating competition in health insurance (i.e. ObamaCare) we'll miraculously see a decrease in health insurance costs?

I haven't figured out the logic of this belief, yet both the federal government and the state of California are pushing it for all it's worth. Never mind that the federal program is full of so many holes, traps, and taxes that there's no way it will do what its creators says it will do. Never mind that California is, to all intents and purposes, insolvent and has no way to actually pay for their version of ObamaCare.

In a matter of days, California will set a precedent for the future of the U.S. individual and small-business insurance markets via ObamaCare's "exchanges," where people will purchase coverage at heavily subsidized rates. The exchanges don't start up until 2014, but the states were given wide bureaucratic latitude in how they're run, and Sacramento is using this flexibility to convert them into a pretext for imposing de facto price controls on the insurance industry.

--snip--

The most dangerous precedent in the California plan is known as "selective contracting." Under ObamaCare, all benefits will be mandated and standardized at the federal level, so all individual and small business plans will be essentially identical except at the margins. Those margins include their brand names, the hospital-doctor networks they've set up, the size of their book of business as pricing leverage and so forth.

--snip--

The California plan passed the legislature in August with the support of soon-to-depart Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who will sign them before the end of the month. The overwhelming sentiment among the authors we spoke with is that the brute force of limiting the number of plans will lower costs. "The only way to drive price, to drive value, is the power to say no," as one of them told us.

In other words, less competition is the best way to drive down costs.

That last line sums up the delusion from which the Democrats in California and Washington DC suffer. Since when have price controls or less competition ever lead to lower costs for the consumer? I can tell you when: NEVER.

They have fallen into the age old trap of assuming they can control prices from afar, short circuiting the necessary feedback mechanisms and pretending market forces are irrelevant. But time will show that mistaken belief to be wrong. Unfortunately the damage will be done, health care will be severely damaged as both the quantity and the quality of it will decrease as providers are priced out of the market. Some providers will close their doors and follow some other career path. Others will merely pull up stakes and set up practices just across the border in Mexico or on one of the Caribbean islands and provide medical services without the need to deal with health insurance or severely restrictive federal government regulations. And they'll be able to provide top notch health care for a fraction of the costs of those within the US.

It will be the Law of Unintended Consequences writ large and tattooed across the foreheads of every Democrat that voted in favor of that stinking-like-a-dead-mackerel piece of legislation called ObamaCare. And we'll be able to watch the health care meltdown happen in California...just like it's happening in the People's Republic of Massachusetts right now. It will be a preview of what's to come for all of us - worse care at higher costs, if it's available at all.

This is scary--in ten years three out of four Americans could be overweight. I wish people would walk more and refrain--I know it's hard--from eating processed carbs. Canadians are suffering with a similar problem.

Recently--I need to lose about five pounds--I've gone off Arthur De Vany's Evolutionary Fitness Diet that's worked so well. I was supposed to skip dinner last night. Yeah, that didn't work.

It isn't often I get to fisk someone's post on another blog. It's rare I get to do so twice in as many weeks. It's even rarer when I get to do it to the same blogger. I am going to enjoy this.

A Warning: This is a lengthy post.

Our friend Paulina, an occasional commenter here at WP, has posted about her confusion in regards to the upcoming elections. Let's help clear up her confusion, shall we?

The midterms are almost upon us, and the latest polls show Republicans overall ahead by 10%. As it stands now, Dems will probably keep the Senate majority (51 to 49) but the House is up for grabs. This is sad news indeed. And to be honest, I don't entirely understand the reason why Republicans are favored. So here is my post about why Dems are better than Republicans for the future of this country. (But mostly it's me being really mad).

She doesn't understand why Republicans are favored? Hmm. I think I can explain that easily - The people are tired of being ripped off by a spendthrift, thieving government filled with people who really don't really give a rat's ass about the American people except how to exploit them (and their money). Not only that, but Americans are tired of being condescended to by those very same people in government who have never had to meet a payroll, don't understand what it's like to run a business, and truly believe they are far better qualified to run our lives than we are.

Better yet I can explain it in fewer words: The government doesn't have a clue what the American people are really like or what they want, which is primarily to be left alone. Certainly the Democrats, including the President, don't understand this. They stopped listening to the American people once they got into office. That's why they'll likely be on the losing end of the mid-term elections.

The last line sums up a lot of her problem: she's emoting rather than actually thinking.

The economy and jobs situation in the US is still pretty sh***y. Unemployment rates are high, banks that profited from the bailout aren't lending, corporations are turning a profit but not hiring. Little guy on the street gets screwed. Surely this is bad, but has everyone forgotten WHY we are in this mess???? Did we forget the Bush tax cuts and pointless wars that depleted the treasury? Did we forget the deregulation of the banks that allowed this entire subprime-mortgage/housing bubble, economy-downturn thing to happen in the first place?

She'll get no argument from me about the economy and unemployment, but I'm not buying her explanation.

The Bush tax cuts weren't a contributing factor to the deficits. It was Congress's profligate spending that was the biggest factor. After the tax cuts the economy grew and with it, tax revenues. Revenues were the highest they've ever been. But Congress increased spending faster than the revenues grew.

Business may be making profits but they aren't hiring for a very good and sound business reason: Obama's hostility towards business and Congressional efforts to slap even more taxes, more regulations, and more onerous (and expensive) programs on them. Until they know what the effects of all of them will be they aren't likely to invest in expanding their businesses. Why should they when it's highly likely they'll be punished by the government for their efforts? Talk about a disincentive!

I'd like to know what deregulation of the banks she's talking about. It certainly didn't happen during the Bush Administration. Maybe she means the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 during the Clinton Administration? The act separated commercial banks from investment banks. The repeal allowed a the merging of the two, which in turn led to some of the problems we saw in the collapse of the housing bubble.

Also, the so-called pointless wars were a small percentage of the overall deficit. Afghanistan was not a pointless war. The Taliban were supporting and hiding Al Qaeda, refusing to hand them over after 9/11. They gave aid and comfort to the enemy. That were given the opportunity to avoid war. They refused. We obliged them and with the help of the Northern Alliance, threw the murdering medieval bastards out.
 
Iraq was merely the continuation of the original Gulf War - Saddam had continuously violated the terms of the cease fire agreement since shortly after the Gulf War , so hostilities resumed. (Yes, I know it's simplistic, but in the end that's what it boils down to.)

The bail out and taxes deserve their own little paragraph. Republican's bailed out the banks (upper class). Democrats bailed out the car industry (middle class). Bush cut taxes for the rich (still in effect!), Obama cut taxes for the low/middle class AND is trying to cut taxes for small business which the Republicans in Congress are blocking. And don't even get me started on all the shit the Republicans blocked these past few years, including health coverage for 9/11 rescue workers! And they are upset about a community center!??!?!?

Ah, I can see her memory has again failed her. Blaming the Republicans for the bank bailouts? Really? Too bad it was the Democrats who pulled that off. Yes, Bush may have been in office, but the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. If they really didn't want to bail out the banks, then why did they pass the legislation? They had more than enough votes to kill it. Could it be because the legislation that created the bailout - H.R. 1424 - was sponsored by Representative Patrick J. Kennedy, a Democrat? Naw, that couldn't be it. It must have been the evil thought-control rays used by the GOP to get the Democrats to do their bidding.

In regards to the auto industry "bailout", again her memory fails her. It wasn't so much a bailout as it was a government takeover of GM and Chrysler, using over $60 billion of taxpayer money to short circuit the usual Chapter 11 bankruptcy process, bypass established bankruptcy law, rip off the bondholders (mostly mutual funds owned by pension and retirement funds) who should have been first in line for redress, and instead handed over bondholder funds to the UAW. That's right, the UAW, the same folks that helped force GM and Chrysler into Chapter 11.

Another memory failure? Obama cut taxes for the lower and middle classes when? Did I miss that? I recall something as part of the stimulus program that temporarily rebated income taxes. In other words they were tax credits, not tax cuts, and those 'cuts' will have to be paid back. And how did he cut taxes for low income people who weren't paying taxes? No one has been able to answer that question for me yet. About the only tax 'cut' that comes to mind is the annual adjustment to the trigger level that forces taxpayers to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax. That's nothing new.

I know Obama has proposed tax incentives for small businesses (which is not the same thing as tax cuts), but I am not aware of any actual tax cuts. (I would know as my wife and I are small business owners and we haven't heard squat about any tax cuts that would affect us in any way, shape, or form.) And those tax incentives? Any idea what they are? I do. They are basically tax credits for hiring new employees. Like that's going to work. Businesses won't hire employees unless they have work for them to do. The tax credits won't even come close to covering the actual cost of adding more employees. They certainly won't induce my wife or I to hire anyone. We can barely cover our payroll, bills, rent, and other expenses as it is. Another employee will end up putting us in the red, even with the tax credit. All this shows is that the President and his financial advisors haven't got a clue about why businesses hire new employees. And let's not get into the new taxes and fees that will be leveled on small businesses under the provisions of ObamaCare.

As far as " all the shit the Republicans blocked these past few years, including health coverage for 9/11 rescue workers", Paulina had better look at the legislation that was supposed to do that. It included so many riders and amendments that would allow waste, fraud, and a whole host of new entitlements that had nothing to do with 9/11 rescue workers and victims that it became an odious piece of legislation. If all it had done was address the health coverage as originally intended the GOP would probably have signed on. But it didn't. Shame on the Democrats for trying to use such a sleazy tactic to ramrod through pet projects and money wasting programs that wouldn't have stood a chance of passing any other way.

Here is a little list of the Dems major accomplishments lately from USA today:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: The $862 billion "stimulus bill" invested in transportation and energy projects, tax cuts and education grants.

Oh, yeah, that's been such a big success. The only problem is that less than $55 billion has been allocated to infrastructure (building or repairing roads, bridges, and railways; water and sewer systems; electrical distribution and generations systems; communications [broadband access]; etc.), things that will be needed when the economy recovers. (Alternative energy and efficiency upgrades for homes, government buildings, and commercial facilities were not included in the total above.) What about the other $823 billion in stimulus funds? Wasted on unimportant things as far as I can see.

Affordable Health Care for America Act: The law $940 billion in the first 10 years will create new health care exchanges, expand insurance coverage to 32 million people who have gone without, close gaps in Medicare prescription-drug coverage and forbid insurance companies from rejecting people for pre-existing conditions.

This was an abominable piece of legislation that will cost hundreds of billions more than Congress has projected and provide nothing but substandard health care. How can anyone have voted for this piece of crap without knowing what was actually in it? That's insanity. It should not have passed as written because it has so many hidden and buried costs, obligations, and outright unconstitutional provisions that it should be scrapped in its entirety. Congress should start with a clean sheet of paper and try again, this time with complete transparency and true bipartisanship (not the "Sit down, shut up, and vote the way we tell you!" kind of bipartisanship as practiced by the Democrats in Congress) and with ideas that will actually work without destroying our health care system. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "We have the worst health care system...except for all the others."

One of the first things that should have been done is tort reform. Without that the rest is moot. Doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine, which costs money, rather than actually working to treat their patients. Can anyone blame them? Who wants to be sued because they didn't perform all the tests to back up their diagnosis or because a patient demands extra tests? So the doctors cave and perform the extra tests to gather evidence in case they're sued for malpractice. That's no way to practice medicine. Unfortunately it's far too common.

It must also be remembered that every time government adds health insurance mandates, it costs money to provide those new services. They aren't free.

Oh, and one last thing: It will take 10 years worth of revenues to pay for 6 years worth of benefits. How do we pay for the following 6 years of benefits? No one has explained that yet.

One of the many claims made in favor of ObamaCare is that it would mean a decrease in the workload at hospital emergency rooms as people seeking treatment would go to a regular doctor once they had health insurance. But if the situation in Massachusetts is any indication, that claim cannot be justified.

Just as Massachusetts' health care system has been the prototype for ObamaCare, it has also shown that many of the features included in ObamaCare won't work. The ER claim is but one of them.

A year ago at a town hall meeting on health care reform, he said, "We know that when somebody doesn't have health insurance, they're forced to get treatment at the ER, and all of us end up paying for it. ... You'd be better off subsidizing to make sure they were getting regular checkups." In late May, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in Roll Call that "the uninsured will get coverage, no longer left to the emergency room for medical care."

Now we know better.

It's not terribly surprising that real data from Massachusetts, which has had universal health coverage since 2006, show otherwise. From 2004 to 2008, ER visits in the Bay State rose by 9%, with no discernable improvement after 2006. Why? At least part of the reason has been the inability of patients to find primary care physicians for last-minute visits. Let's face it: The ER won't turn you away, but individual and overburdened doctors can and will. The Massachusetts Medical Society has reported that new patients wait for a primary care doctor visit up to two months.

Under ObamaCare we can expect exactly the same results nationwide because exactly the same problems exist in the rest of the nation as well. ObamaCare doesn't increase the number of hospitals, physicians, nurses, and other medical care staff. All it does is place an even greater burden upon them than doing nothing. That is no way to 'reform' health care.

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record in regards to ObamaCare, but it appears our not-so-wise Congresscritters still don't understand the concept of It Ain't Gonna Work.

Again, the health insurance system upon which ObamaCare was heavily based is coming apart at the seams, with costs rising, courts overturning arbitrarily imposed rate caps, and actual access to health care declining.

But the Democrats in Congress and the White House insist everything will work just fine once the program goes national. Never mind that it's no better than what we're seeing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, just a heck of a lot more expensive and destructive. I guess they think that if they just believe it as hard as they can it will all come true. Too bad that history is against them.

There isn't a single member of Congress capable of pointing out a socialist health care system that works well and provides the level of care available here in the US. Why? Because it doesn't exist and never has.

Every such system eventually fails, either spectacularly or one slow painful step at a time. While a lot of people tout the British, Canadian, and French health care systems as superior to ours, they are wrong. Oh, they'll give us anecdotal evidence that out system really sucks, quoting long discredited WHO studies about things like infant mortality or life spans. But when it comes down to it, after taking a look at thinks like cancer survival rates, survival rates for strokes, heart attacks, actual infant mortality rates (taking into account that the US has a far higher survival rate for preemies, something the WHO stats ignore), the effectiveness of rehabilitative therapy, and a host of other branches of medicine, the US comes out on top. That's why so many people come from all over the world to be treated here rather than going to the UK, France, or Canada. Once ObamaCare kicks in and does great damage to our health care system, that will all change because the US will no longer have such a great health care system.

I must change course on this a little bit to cover something that has become a big pet peeve of mine in regards to ObamaCare.

One thing that drives me to distraction is the mistaken belief that ObamaCare will somehow provide access to medical care. It won't. It isn't designed to do that, despite what many may claim. What it's supposed to do is provide health insurance to those presently without it. It doesn't guarantee access to health care at all. Even today people with health insurance may have limited or no access to routine health care because they can't find a doctor who is willing to take on new patients. (In many cases it's not that doctors don't want to take on more patients, it's that they can barely handle the ones they already have.) Others won't take Medicare or Medicaid patients because of the extra requirements the government imposes on them in regards to staffing and reporting and the poor reimbursements. And yet others in certain specialties won't take on high-risk patients because of the fear of malpractice suits.

Does our health care system have problems? Absolutely. Does it make any sense to pass poorly thought out and damaging legislation that will only make the existing problems worse? Of course not. But that's what we ended up with, courtesy of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

Doctors increasingly limiting the number of their Medicare patients, who pay ridiculously low rates? Who'd have thunk it? And all that paperwork to be filled, too. Why is gubmit so incompetent? More free market in health care, please.

UPDATE: Forty-three page report on ObamaCare three months later by congressional minority leader John Boehner (R., Ohio).

You know it's bad when even CNN is dumping on ObamaCare.

The CNN report linked above covers the growing problems with Massachusetts health insurance program upon which ObamaCare has been modeled. None of the goals stated in the Massachusetts version have been met. The system is failing financially, with no control over costs, mandated coverage adding to health insurance premiums, subsidies for low/medium-income earners heading ever upwards, disincentives for people to work (higher income means paying a lot more for health insurance), and unintended incentives for businesses to drop their employees health insurance plans entirely.

The Massachusetts system is a preview of what we can expect as ObamaCare kicks in.

Already the the side effects of ObamaCare can be seen as the costs of it become more apparent. If most of the details of this bill had been made known to all of Congress before the vote it never would have passed. Anyone in Congress with a modicum of knowledge about business would have been able to see the negatives of ObamaCare far outweighed any perceived benefits.

With the unintended incentives ObamaCare gives businesses to drop employee health care, or worse, have all future hires brought on as temporary or contract employees, Obama's promise that we'd "be able to keep our present health insurance if we want to" rings hollow and shows he either doesn't truly understand the ramifications of health care reform, or doesn't care. The fact that he needs to spend $125 million of taxpayer funds to sell the idea that ObamaCare will be wonderful proves how bad it will be. If it was truly all that great it would sell itself. But the more he tries to push it on the American people the more they resist letting him destroy the imperfect but world class health care system we have.

Anyone with even a little math ability can figure out that the numbers don't add up, that they don't take into account real world conditions, and totally ignore the effects of the fiscal disincentives that will cause companies to drop health insurance for their employees and induce health care professionals to leave the medical field.

Right here. Thanks, CBO, for finally telling us what we already knew. The deficit will grow as a result of covering more Americans and non-Americans with Nancy Obamareid Care. Good heavens! There's a reason these sorts of massive bill shouldn't be rushed through.

This letter to the editor appeared in Monday's Laconia Daily Sun. The author, one E. Scott Cracraft managed to use every single discredited and bigoted cliché in the book in his effort to paint the TEA party and its activists and supporters as the next Nazi Party. Originally I thought to just post it and my reply and leave it at that. But after rereading Mister Cracraft's diatribe, I realized what it really deserved was a complete fisking to show what a clueless and unthinking "useful idiot" he has become.

In spite of the efforts by the Tea Partiers (and the corporate media) to make the "Tea Party" movement appear "mainstream," the movement's "core" is far from mainstream. This movement includes people who arm themselves to overthrow a legally elected government. In some states, they have advocated succession from the Union. Some anti-Obama activists have even gone as far as calling for a military coup against the Obama administration.

This guy has tried to tie just about every fringe group he can think of to the TEA party movement. I'm surprised he hasn't tried to include the Weather Underground. Oh. Wait. It's President Obama who has ties to members of that domestic terrorist organization!

Cracraft's accusations ring hollow if for no other reason that there's been absolutely no evidence tying any of the militia groups to the movement. The "core' as he calls it has no desire to overthrow the government except by the same means the present government came to power - the ballot box. But there will be one difference: we won't need to stuff ballot boxes or commit massive voter fraud in order to throw the bums out.

The Tea Partiers also include religious conservatives who have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution does not make the American Republic a "Christian Country" but rather separates church and state while providing the most religious freedom possible. Others want to ban a woman's right to reproductive freedom. Interestingly, these same people who cry out against abortion also judge "welfare moms" for having too many babies! And yes, in spite of the movement's public rejection of racism, there are some racists in that movement These people cannot accept the fact that the American people (and the Electoral College) elected an African-American President with a "foreign" sounding name. Many of these are "Birthers," who even question President Obama's right to be president even though he won the election fairly and legally. No mainstream politician of either party has supported this lie but this urban legend persists, largely due to some of whom are in the Tea Party movement or who support it.

This country was first settled by religious refugees seeking to be free to practice their religion without interference from either their rulers or the established churches. Cracraft seems to forgotten this as well as the Constitution states there is a freedom of religion, not just freedom from religion. Over the past 50 years or so too many in this country have done their best to drive free expression of religious belief underground as if it were a dirty little secret to be hidden away from prying eyes. They have used the courts to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment in such a way as to ban almost all public displays of belief. Being a person of faith is not a disqualifier for holding public office, despite what Mr. Cracraft would apparently like to believe.

He also seems to believe that only the TEA party has racists. I hate to disillusion him, but there are far more racists within the Democratic Party than the TEA parties. He also ignores the fact that quite a few TEA party supporters voted for Obama and have since come to see him for the disingenuous big-government socialist he is. That isn't racism. That's regret. The only similarity between the two is that they both begin with the letter 'r'.

Then too, the anti-immigrant sentiment on the part of many Tea Partiers can be construed as racist. I rarely hear those opposed to immigration reform talking about white, European immigrants. It is usually about Asians, people from the Middle East, and Hispanics. Racist or not, there does seem to be and element of the "politics of meanness" among the Tea Partiers.

We aren't anti-immigrant. Many of us are immigrants or children of immigrants. We are anti-illegal immigrant. There's a big difference between the two. It's possible Cracraft is incapable of telling the difference because to him all the illegal immigrants are future Democrat supporters...once they can figure out a way to grant them amnesty and a short ride to citizenship. Never mind the legal immigrants such a move will screw over.

Conservatives have frequently criticized liberal presidents in the past, including President Clinton, but no conservative has gone so far as to question their qualifications to serve. "Red-baiting" has become common on Tea Party signs and at Tea Party gatherings. No liberal candidate has been called a "communist" or a "traitor" to his or her country in a long time. This includes people that are more liberal than Obama. The Constitution, in order to protect our political freedom, narrowly defines what "treason" is and I fail to see how our current president fits this definition. Thus, I cannot help but believe that there is a strong racist element in the movement against President Obama.

As the old saying goes, "You shall know them by the company they keep." It is Obama who has consorted with known and self-avowed anti-American terrorists (Bill Ayer and Bernadine Dohrn, just to name two). It is Obama who, for almost 20 years, attended an unabashedly racist church with a pastor who spouted bigoted, racist rhetoric and called upon God to damn America, much like any radical Muslim cleric.

Of all our previous Presidents, only Obama has worked so hard to conceal his past, the details of his upbringing, his scholarship, and his vital statistics. Every other President's life was an open book. But not Obama's. We know nothing of his academic achievements. We know nothing of any articles or papers he might have authored while editor of the Harvard Law Review. And what we do know of his time at HLR is not flattering, with more than one colleague of his from his time there saying he was basically a do-nothing editor-in-name-only, deigning to grace the others working there with his presence from time to time and not much more.

The Tea Partiers are not engaging in "mainstream" talk. They have an extreme reactionary agenda which should be a concern of every American. They are using violent language, arming themselves, and even calling themselves "right wing terrorists." I have to laugh when a self-commissioned militia "colonel" spoke of defending themselves against leftists at a recent Tea Party in Washington. In case you have not heard, armed left-wing groups in the United States pretty much died out with the Weather Underground in the 1970s. It is not the liberals or progressives who are dressing up in camouflage and conducting field maneuvers utilizing automatic weapons (I think the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" with a chain of command subordinate to the elected civilian authorities and not a bunch of grown boys playing army in the woods). Nor is it the liberals and progressives who are making death threats to members of Congress with whom they disagree.

There he goes again, painting a picture of the TEA party supporters as fringe militant wackos. Well guess what? All these guys are are fringe element wackos, but they aren't TEA party folks. They have as much to do with the core of the TEA party movement as you do, which means none.

If all he knows of the TEA party is what he's seen on TV or from the New York Times, Washington Post, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos, then Cracraft is so mis- and un-informed as to be laughable. Not one of these 'sources' is reliable, unbiased, or without a political agenda that does not have the good of the American people as their focus. Like any media source, left or right, they can't be trusted. The fact that he appears to do so shows he's become incapable of thinking for himself and can only parrot what these sources have programmed him to say.

Some Tea Partiers, in their literature and websites, even call for employers to fire liberal employees simply because they are liberal. It does not matter what the employee's work performance is like. They also want to remove liberal teachers from our schools whether or not they are good teachers. They even encourage their followers to break off social relations with liberals and to totally marginalize them. And they accuse liberals of "intolerance?"

I've heard this claim, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence. He's made the claim. It's up to him to prove it.

I know I don't want the good teachers to be fired. But what I don't want are educators that aren't teaching what they're supposed to be teaching and are instead indoctrinating our children, teaching them what to think, not how to think, how to reason things out on their own. These days far too many of our kids are coming out of school totally unprepared to make it in the real world. They haven't been taught the critical thinking skills that will allow them to succeed away from the indoctrination centers we call schools. All they've been taught is how to allow others to think for them and to not question what they've been told.

As far as tolerance is concerned. The most intolerant people I have come across in my life have all been liberals. For them, tolerance is something other people must have, not them.

The Tea Partiers and their ilk protest and claim that as a "grass roots" movement, they are not responsible if there are some "wackos" in their ranks. But, while urging the American people not to "paint them with the same brush," the Tea Partiers seem to paint all liberals and progressives as Marxists, communists or terrorists, if not worse. And, I am not sure that they are even using these terms accurately. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that many of their opponents tend to paint them as "racists" and "fascists."

When a large majority of the liberals/progressives in power spout Marxist/Communist ideals and support leftist/fascist dictators over democratically elected governments, then yes we'll call them Marxists and Communists and fascists.

When our President insults our staunchest allies and embraces our enemies with open arms, then yes, we will paint him with the same broad brush. To quote yet another old saying, "By their actions you shall know them." So far our President's "smart diplomacy" has done more damage to America's foreign relations in a little over a year than eight years of Dubya's presidency.

One also has to be cynical about the "grassroots" label: the Tea Partiers and their Tea Parties are being funded by some very wealthy conservative interests. Some of these interests do not want banking reform. Others have a personal stake in seeing that meaningful health care reform is eventually defeated. How else could Sarah Palin pull down $100,000 per speech? Also, one look at a typical Tea Party website shows the movement's close association with extreme right-wing national movements and organizations.

Oh, really?Just who is financing the TEA party movement? I notice he didn't name names. He made the claim, it's up to him to prove it.

On the other hand, the Democrats, and particularly the extreme left-wing of the party, has been heavily financed by multi-billionaire George Soros, an unabashed socialist (his claim, not mine) and someone who is not a friend of the American people. Like most on the Left, he believes we aren't capable of making our own decisions and he's willing to spend his billions to make sure our ability to do so will be stripped from us, one step, one right at a time. Also, much of the Hollywood elite are willing to support political causes most Americans find repugnant. They pour millions into the Democrat party to help elect candidates that are more than willing to dismantle the Constitution because we're too stupid to understand that we need the morally bankrupt progressives to tell us what we need.

As to Sarah Palin's $100,000 speaking fee: So what? When she speaks at TEA party functions she has given that money to help fund the movement on more than one occasion. Bill Clinton pulls down that much for the same thing, but Cracraft hasn't asked who's financing his speaking engagements, has he? It's a specious point. Get over it.

I have no doubt that there are well-meaning members of the "silent majority" in the Tea Party movement who are simply afraid of government and who came blame them? The Federal Government can be scary to all of us! After eight years of George Bush, who turned a federal budget surplus into a deficit through his wars and giving tax breaks to rich Americans, who would not be suspicious of the federal government and its motives? The well-meaning Tea Partiers should consider who their real "enemy" is: the "Military/Industrial Complex" (a term, incidentally, coined by a Republican, not a liberal Democrat) which has received more taxpayer money than every "welfare cheat" combined.

First, a good part of Clinton's budget surplus was funded by borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund, which has not been paid back and never will be.

Second, Bush didn't give tax breaks just to the rich. He gave them to every tax payer...unless Cracraft's definition of 'rich' is the same as that of the Democrats in Congress - Anyone with a job.

Third, at least one of those wars was not started by us, not by George Bush. It was started by Osama Bib Laden after his follower committed an act of war against the United States, one that was greater than the attack on Pearl Harbor back on December 7, 1941.

Fourth, the other war was started by Saddam Hussein in 1990. We merely got around to finishing it.

Initially, this anti-government movement included a large number of libertarians. While not always agreeing with them, I have always respected the libertarians more than the Republicans who seek to hijack their movement. The libertarians oppose government intrusion into any aspect of our lives. While they are against taxation and "big government," at least they are consistent. They may oppose taxation but they also are champions of personal liberty and oppose government interference in what one smokes or who one sleeps with.

I have to agree that the GOP has been trying to hijack the TEA party, trying to 'bring it into the fold', as it were. But we're too pissed off at the GOP, and particularly those within the party that we call RINOS, - Republicans In Name Only. The GOP betrayed its libertarian roots and became a somewhat less liberal version of the Democrat Party with the same spendthrift tendencies.

As we have seen, the RINOS had no problem spending money the American people didn't have. But that's no excuse for the Democrats to double down and create a deficit in one year that was bigger than Bush's deficit over eight years. (And we must remember these two things: the Democrats controlled Congress during the last two years of the Bush Administration - a time during which the two biggest budget deficits occurred - and that all spending starts in the House of Representatives.)

Mainstream America is sick and tired of being ignored by our employees, who spend without our leave, impose programs upon us we neither want or can afford to pay for, and forget that they work for us, not the other way around.

Unfortunately, the Tea Party Movement seems to have been taken over by extreme GOP conservative hypocrites who are committed to protecting corporate interests. While they whine about government interference in terms of regulating business, they seem to have no problem with regulating a person's personal lifestyle choices. While the Tea Partiers oppose government getting involved in health care, they seem to have no issue with banning same-sex marriage or medical marijuana. I hope the "well-meaning" Tea Partiers eventually realize which side they are really on.

Oh, and the Democrats haven't been doing just that, and rather blatantly while they're at it? They haven't passed legislation that created 'regulations' and 'rules' and laws whose sole aim is to cripple competition and lock out the small guy. They aren't pandering to those same corporate interests?

Cracraft has attributed far too many motivations to the a vast majority of TEA party supporters and activists. Mostly, we want to be left alone by government, want government to get its financial house in order, want the government to start following the Constitution, want the government to stop spending money it doesn't have and won't have in the future. Abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other social issues aren't even a blip on our agenda. The resistance to health care has nothing to do with denying people health care, but does have to do with its unsustainable cost, its intrusive nature, and its destruction of one of the best health care systems in the world all in the name the overused and purposely misdefined term 'fairness'. My question is, fair to who?

'Nuff said.

The ongoing health care debacle in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been an object lesson for those opposed to ObamaCare as it exists now, showing the nation how not to do health care reform. Unfortunately ObamaCare is based heavily MassCare, using many of the same 'economics' and mandates. As we've been seeing over the past year or so, MassCare is coming apart. Between much higher than projected costs, lower than projected revenues, and health insurance companies taking a hit - higher payouts and rate hikes denied by the state - forcing them to stop accepting new policyholders. Of course Governor Deval Patrick has retaliated, taking the insurance companies to court.

Insurance companies are now claiming that the rejected rate increases mean they won't be able to operate at a profit, and arguing that no actuary would approve the sort of rates that state insurance regulators say they expect. Actuary sign-off is not only important for fiscal stability--it's a legal requirement in the state. (emphasis added)

Is this just insurance company posturing? It's entirely possible. Industries, entirely understandably, are bound to put up a fight when told they can't set their own prices. That means making the toughest claims they think they can get away with. But it's not unbelievable that the combination of rate caps and increased regulatory burdens is imposing what amounts to an impossible strain on private insurers.

One commenter to the linked piece has proven again that far too many people don't understand economics, and particularly the economics of health care and health insurance.

The answer is easy. Make all health insurance companies non-profit by law. They they'll be tripping over each other to provide us all with free health care, once that pesky profit motive is out of the way.

This comment shows complete ignorance of how insurance works and the razor thin margins health insurance companies have. Health insurance companies have a less than a 2% profit margin (even non-profits have to make money). As another commenter noted, just because an insurance company is non-profit doesn't mean they won't lose money if payouts are higher than the premiums they take in. Between state mandates and state control of rate hikes, insurance companies are being squeezed between a rock and a hard place. And like ObamaCare, Massachusetts health care does not allow insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, meaning the amount they'll pay out for medical claims will go up disproportionately to the number of new policyholders they'll gain. Unless premiums go up to compensate for the higher claim payouts, the insurance company will lose money and, under the worst circumstances, fail.

In order to help those of you out there who are economics knowledge-challenged to understand what I just said, here's a simple equation that explains it all:

Claims Paid + Overhead* ≤ Premiums Received

* personnel salary/benefits, utilities, rent/mortgage, office equipment, taxes, loan payments, etc.

Translation: the claims paid plus the costs of running the business must be equal to or less than the amount of money received for premiums paid by the policyholders. If the amount of money received from premiums is consistently less than claims paid and overhead, the insurance company goes broke, closes, and its policyholders will be left with no insurance. This is the direction MassCare is forcing the health insurance companies there to take. ObamaCare won't be any different, except that it will cause this problem nationwide.

Neither MassCare or ObamaCare have addressed the real issues with rising health care costs, nor are they likely to do so. Neither was designed to do so.

I attended the gathering outside the Laconia, NH City Hall for Carol Shea-Porter's town hall meeting. (I didn't get to actually attend the meeting as there were only 60 seats and I got there too late to even stand in line to get in.) She was there to convince us that ObamaCare was going to do wonderful things for everyone and that there would be no problems paying for it all, but it appears most of the 60 folks actually in the meeting weren't buying it. She chose not to answer other questions asked of her, either doing a rope-a-dope, giving a non-answer answer, or giving a constituent the runaround rather than a straight answer. And she wonders why we're angry?

Since I couldn't get into the meeting I spent time talking with the folks outside, some of whom supported CSP and her vote in favor of ObamaCare and the rest that did not.

Almost all of the supporters were retirees, with one or two of the rest being dyed-in-the-wool don't-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way government-is-the-answer-to-all-our-problems-even-the-problems-the-government-created liberals. Discussing the issues with them was enlightening. One of the first things I realized about the folks I was talking to was that they had little understand of economics, particularly in regards to ObamaCare, and did not understand the implications of the heavy economic burden ObamaCare will impose. They were of the opinion that "the rich will pay for it all" and that they don't pay nearly enough. I asked one of them how much money the rich, as they defined them, made in a year. She guessed over a couple of trillion dollars a year. Even after I informed her that even if they took 100% of what the rich made in a year to pay for ObamaCare, the government would only collect about $400 billion. I also mentioned the government would only collect that much the first year and that the second and subsequent years they would collect $0 because either the rich would pack up and leave or they would 'go Galt' (go on strike).

Her response?

The government should force them to work so they could "pay their fair share of taxes." At that point I said her "So you would advocate turning the rich into slaves just to fulfill some twisted ideal of 'social justice'?" Of course she said no, but I pointed out she had just said they should be forced to work against their will. That, by definition, is slavery, something that is unconstitutional, immoral and unethical.

From that point the discussion pretty much ended as I think she realized she had strayed into a topic that was indefensible from any viewpoint and didn't want to talk to me any more.

I did manage to have an intelligent discussion with a couple of pro- and anti-ObamaCare folks. We all agreed some kind of health care reform was necessary. We merely disagreed on the level of reform needed. But after about 30 minutes of debate some of the pro-ObamaCare folks appeared to be shifting their outlook on ObamaCare as written. As one of them said, "We have to do something!" But one of us on the anti-ObamaCare said something along the lines of "True, but let's make sure it's the right something and not the most expedient and seriously flawed something like the present law."

Unfortunately I had to leave the discussion at that point to get back home. But I felt that perhaps we had put some doubt in the minds of some not-so-wholehearted ObamaCare supporters.

Reading and watching the reactions to the passage of ObamaCare has been educational if for no other reason that it illustrates the differences between those supporting the poorly thought out piece of legislation and those opposing it. Probably the biggest difference has got to be an understanding of economics in regards to the Law of Unintended Consequences. Those supporting ObamaCare (primarily the Left) apparently have a poor or non-existent understanding of economics or the effects of laws, taxes, spending, and mandates. Those opposing it (primarily the Right and the Center) understand economics all too well and particularly in relation to ObamaCare. They also understand the aforementioned Law of Unintended Consequences and how it is already coming into play.

The first and most profound effects will have far-reaching consequences, with large companies like Caterpillar, Verizon, and AT&T having to pay hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars they might have used for other purposes...like expanding their businesses and hiring more people. Of course I expect the Left to say it's all smoke and mirrors and that heartless businesses are just using this as an excuse to hurt their employees. (Yeah, like successful businesses will purposefully hurt the very people they need to remain successful.) They don't understand that when you take that kind of money away from businesses they'll have no choice but to react in ways that will allow them to survive.

Another unanticipated effect of ObamaCare: Retirees presently receiving prescription drug benefits from their former employers may lose that coverage and be forced to convert to Medicare Part D. Why? Because ObamaCare just made it far more expensive for the former employers to keep providing the benefits by adding billions in new taxes on those benefits, which is one heck of a disincentive to keep doing so. By not providing this benefit they won't have to pay the taxes. It also means the government won't collect the billions in new taxes they expected and they'll have to spend billions more to cover the now benefitless retirees. Between the lost revenues and the new expenditures the government will come out the loser on this, meaning the rest of us will have to make up the difference. We just don't know exactly how it is we'll be paying for it but it won't be cheap.

Another not so unexpected unintended consequence: Some of the very people we'll depend on to provide all this health care will bail out of the medical profession because they'll be heavily taxed on their income, won't be the ones deciding what care their patients require, and won't be reimbursed enough by Medicare to cover their costs under the 21% cut in Medicare payments that are part of ObamaCare, just to name a few. This is the same thing that happened in the UK and Canada when their governments took over control of health care - doctors and nurses left the profession or left the country and practiced elsewhere...like the United States.

Will ObamaCare initiate a rebellion among health care professionals as has happened in Canada, where some doctors have refused to take 'national insurance' and opened private cash-only clinics? Some practitioners here in the US have already shed themselves of the headache of health insurance, taking cash-only patients and/or offering concierge medical services (patients pay an annual retainer in return for a certain number of visits and services, which in the long run can be cheaper and easier than insurance).

In light of this I have a question for the ObamaCare proponents - Just because an additional 30 million people lacking health insurance will get it in the not so near future, what makes you think there will be any doctors willing or able to take them on as new patients?

Some may claim the only reason doctors will do something like that is because they're greedy bastards who really don't give a damn about patients, only about money.

A lot of the times, they offer treatments and surgeries for cancer or whatever that might cost $200,000 and they KNOW that they will only help the patient live MAYBE 4 months longer. The doctors have seen it happen over and over. It sure does make you wonder if the doctors are offering these treatments more for THEMSELVES financially or for the good of the patient.

A response to this piece of ignorant crap came from Dr. Ann Contrucci, MD, a pediatrician in Atlanta, Georgia:

Mr. Foster, I don't believe I saw M.D. behind your name? For those of us real doctors who assess real patients and make decisions regarding their treatments, your comments are nothing short of arrogant and insulting. Did you look this stuff up on, I'm sure, a reputable medical website so now you "get" what a doctor does and understand how he or she makes decisions? Do you actually have ANY idea how we make medical decisions? Do you have any idea what kind of education, training, and experience makes up what we do? We are given one of the biggest, if not the biggest, responsibilities of any job known and that is to heal. Unfortunately, despite even our best treatments sometimes, that is not the case. That is because medicine is still an art and not 100% exact science...therefore, bad outcomes still result. What used to be accepted as part of the circle of life is no longer so. Now it is patients coming in demanding this or that test, this or that medication because they "saw it on TV" or read it on the internet. If something bad occurs, well it must be the doctor's fault. There is no trust in physicians and with the bottom dwelling plaintiffs' attorneys lurking, frankly there isn't much trust in the patients. If I had a dollar for the number of times I've heard, "if you don't do the CT scan, I'm going to sue you," I'd be one of those "rich doctors" I always hear about. Funny, none of the docs I know are those "rich doctors."

I canNOT believe you would actually think that "doctors are offering these treatments more for themselves financially..." If you actually think that most physicians are of this mindset, you are a sick, sick man and there is no hope for you. Thank God you didn't go into medicine!

Here's the "DIRTY LITTLE SECRET" - physicians want to do the right thing for our patients, we do our best every day under, oftentimes, extreme circumstances and in stressful, chaotic environments with a risk to benefit ratio that is nearly always not in our favor. We do all of this while being held to an impossible standard of accountability while the politicians who are making all the decisions have none whatsoever. Perhaps your time would be better spent looking into those dirty little secrets... By the way, I truly hope that you or no one in your family every needs a physician's services for anything - you really wouldn't want to have to trust one of us to help you, would you? If, God forbid, you or someone you love has to be rushed to the ER for, say, a heart attack, what dirty little secret do you think your ER doctor will be harboring? Hmmm, I would bet that you will be given any and every treatment there is to SAVE YOUR LIFE! But that's just a guess...

Unfortunately the attitude of the first commenter, Dan Foster, is all too common, particularly among supporters of ObamaCare. As Dr. Contrucci says, too many people like Foster have no idea what is involved in becoming a physician and the pressure they're under every single day they're treating patients. The problem is there are far too many others out there with the same attitude as Mr. Foster, which might be why they support ObamaCare - pure ignorance. It would also explain why they have overlooked the unintended economic consequences of ObamaCare.

Resistance to ObamaCare at the state level is growing. AG's of a dozen states have already said they'll bring suit to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare, in particular the part making to mandatory for American citizens to purchase a service or be fined (or imprisoned). Some states are working on or have passed legislation negating that requirement, seeing it as a violation of the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment.

New Hampshire State Senator Jeb Bradley has filed such legislation here in the Granite State, making mandatory health insurance illegal without due process, meaning a court could order someone to obtain it as part of divorce/custody/child support agreement, but only then.

I wonder if the Democrats, and specifically Obama, will get the message that this piece of legislation is hated by a majority of the American people. No need to answer that as we already know they know, but don't care.

Now that I've had a chance to cool down a bit and think more upon the effects of ObamaCare, I can see my initial thoughts about it were, if anything, far too optimistic.

While masquerading as a health care reform bill, ObamaCare is nothing more than yet another means to slowly achieve the socialist revolution rather than having to fight a bloody insurgent campaign. It's kind of like the old saw about boiling a frog - Don't drop the frog into the boiling water because he'll hop out. Instead, put him in a pot of cold water and slowly raise the heat. By the time he realizes the water is boiling he's already been cooked. And that's what ObamaCare is really all about, boiling the frog (or in this case the American people, our freedoms, and the Constitution).

Am I being paranoid? Could be. But the question I pose to myself is, am I being paranoid enough? Because when a bunch of progressive jerk with little true understanding of the American people, the American economy, or of the Constitution of the United States start dictating to us what is good and bad for us, it's time to take up arms, figuratively speaking, and disabuse them of the notion that they are somehow our betters. And if they still don't get it, then it may time to take up arms, literally.

The Democrats in Congress ignored the wishes of a majority of Americans. They only paid lip service to bipartisanship. (Their definition of bipartisanship is to tell the Republicans to sit down, shut up, and vote the way the Democrats tell them to vote.) While many on the Left will cite Social Security and Medicare as social programs people said wouldn't work and would severely damage the economy (which they both will unless both programs are revamped top to bottom), both of those programs had true bipartisan support. ObamaCare had absolutely none.

Well, maybe I should clarify something about that last statement. In actuality there was bipartisanship in regards to ObamaCare. Unfortunately for Obama it was bipartisan opposition to the bill.

Across America the response to the passage of ObamaCare was one of dismay, shock, and anger. Some few applauded its passage, loving the idea of a massively dysfunctional budget-busting government-run health care system. One commenter to this WSJ piece is not one of them:

I'm sure most Americans, or at least thinking Americans, those that considered their heritage one of freedom and liberty, had already condemned Obamacare on a gut level from the start, as they should, but probably few know the exact details of this gross unconstitutional intrusion into their lives and what it will mean to them. Here are the highlights divided into three lamentable categories: increased taxes and fees, spiraling costs, and reduced services.

Marc's comment, which is excerpted above, is rather extensive and covers the salient points of ObamaCare and its major downsides. As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing.

It seems Nicholas Kristof is confused about health care reform, thinking it's all about making sure everyone has access to health care. Obviously he has not been paying attention to the debate or the proposed legislation.

Poor Nicholas. Apparently he can't tell the difference between access to health care and health insurance.

Everyone in America has had access to health care by law since the the 1980's. No one needing care can be turned away, even if they can't pay for it. ObamaCare has nothing to do with access, at least not directly.

According to the Democrats ObamaCare is all about is health insurance, something entirely different. Of course once everyone has insurance there will be an effect on health care access, just not the one they expected - there will be less of it. Doctors will be unwilling or unable to take on new patients, just like in Massachusetts under RomneyCare. So even if you have insurance there's absolutely no guarantee you'll be able to find a doctor to take you as a patient.

See the difference now, Nicholas?

In light of the increasing pressure from the President and the Congressional Democrat leadership to pass the overreaching and economy-busting health care destruction bill, a number of states have been proactive, working to short-circuit the Left's attempt to grab even more power over the lives of their citizens.

Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.

With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.

[Idaho Governor] Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.

"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."

Considering Congressional Democrats and the President have been ignoring the will of a large majority of the American people, is it any wonder state legislators are taking measures to send a message to them, telling them we won't stand for having this version of health care reform shoved down our throats? The states are rebelling against the Left's arrogant belief that they know better than we what it is we need.

Throughout history such belief by the self-proclaimed elite has always led to grief, misery, and tyranny. They can justify any action as being for "the good of the people" even when it was only good for the elite. And so it is with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the other members of the Leftist cabal. They do not believe we are capable of running our own lives, that we aren't smart enough to make our own decisions, that if we don't follow their leadership that we must be deranged and need to forced to surrender our will to the State.

That's what this whole ObamaCare kerfuffle is all about - Power.

While browsing the news today, I came across an interesting story on Fox. Evidently, I must be old-fashioned. I always thought debate and free thought were integral parts of the American way, and all aspects were to be considered before a decision is made. Evidently, the President disagrees.

President Obama is not worried about the "procedural" debate over whether House Democratic leaders should go ahead with a plan to approve health care reform without a traditional vote, he told Fox News on Wednesday. 

Now this is interesting. Rather than just note that there are others (a majority, in fact) that happen to disagree with the President's ideas on socializing improving healthcare, he simply writes off this disapproval as a "procedural" event, almost as if those who oppose don't really oppose - they're just playing the part. This, in my opinion, just shows the true arrogance of a man who clearly does not see reality. I'm sure in his world this is a cut and dried deal, just waiting to be sealed with a tally. Unfortunately, for the millions of us who can't escape reality on Capitol Hill, things may be a bit different (like, really different... Really, really different).

President Obama is not worried -- and doesn't think Americans should worry -- about the "procedural" debate over whether House Democratic leaders should go ahead with a plan to approve health care reform without a traditional vote, he told Fox News on Wednesday. 

So, let's get this straight. The debate against your plans is just a "procedural" event; yet, your primary plan for passing this measure is bypassing the traditional voting method? Logic seems to be telling me that if there are only routine "devils-advocate" debates against you, why not put it up for a real vote, and enjoy near-unanimity? Oh, wait. They can't do that, because the debate is real. I'm sorry, but when your voting tactics are raising legal questions, one of your own floors' whip is in disagreement with your methods, a 12-point margin is calling your plan an outright "Bad Idea", and you have to come eerily close to buying votes, it may just be time to give it up.

 

---TNJ