41. WHO Study1

41.  WHO Study1

 

When the Democrats decided to make healthcare a crisis in this country, they loved to quote a World Health Organization study that ranked the United States 37^th in the “quality of healthcare” compared to other countries in the world.  In fact, they are still quoting that study.  So, any discussion about healthcare would not be complete without analyzing this so called study, The World Health Report 2000.

 

First of all, remember that the countries being compared to the US all have socialized medicine of some sort.  Those folks were the ones that set up the criteria for the rankings and assigned the scores.  They based the ranking on how well they think a country’s healthcare system performed compared to how they THINK that country should have performed.  Sound a bit subjective?  It gets worse.  They ranked based on life expectancy and “responsiveness” of a healthcare system, and that sounds reasonable; but then they had a score for “financial fairness” and “responsiveness distribution” and “health distribution”.  Let’s look at these. 

 

“Financial fairness” measured what percentage of a family’s income was spent on healthcare.  They liked the idea of everyone paying the same percentage.  So, a country would get a better score if wealthy folks paid much, much more for their healthcare than poorer folks, similar to our federal income tax system.  The countries that had government deciding who paid for what healthcare scored highest… in other words, countries with socialized medicine.  Countries that had more variation, with some families paying a smaller percentage of their income on healthcare, and some paying a higher percentage, like the US, were penalized.  

 

“Health Distribution” and “Responsiveness Distribution” measure how “equal” the level of healthcare and responsiveness of care is for a country’s citizens.  In this scenario, a country that has poor resources and mediocre care for all ranks higher than a country, like the US, that has good quality for all, but exceptional quality for those who are able and willing to pay more.  Using a food analogy, if everyone gets hotdogs, it’s “better” than if everyone has access to hotdogs, but some eat lobster.  Me?  I think the WHO is full of baloney.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

Dr. Jill Vecchio--PPACA Pt 7 Real Reform Ideas



(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

Dr. Jill Vecchio--PPACA Pt 6 Constitutional Issues



(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

Dr. Jill Vecchio--PPACA Pt 5 Doctors and Patients



(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

Dr. Jill Vecchio--PPACA Pt 4 Employers and Exchanges



(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

Dr. Jill Vecchio--PPACA Pt 3 Costs B



(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

Dr. Jill Vecchio--PPACA Pt 2 Costs A



(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

Dr. Jill Vecchio--PPACA Pt 1 Coverage



(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.) Dr. Jill Vecchio--PPACA Pt 1 Coverage

Vecchio speech at Americans for Prosperity Rally 6/29/2012



(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

40. Just the Beginning

40.  Just the Beginning

 

On one of my trips to Washington, DC to meet with other doctors that opposed Obamacare, I met a young physician who had grown up in Chile.  I’ll call him Francisco.  He told a sobering story of his family’s experience during the Presidency of Salvador Allende in the 1970’s. 

 

Allende was a Socialist who believed in nationalization of industries, re-distribution of wealth and government control of virtually every aspect of Chilean life.  One of the first things he did was nationalize the healthcare system.  He set price controls on goods and services and set up a distribution network of government agencies to ensure that his new rules were followed.  Sounds a little like Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board and the state healthcare exchanges, doesn’t it?

 

Francisco’s family lands were taken by the government and re-distributed to poorer families.  Funny thing though—those poorer families didn’t know how to manage their new lands.  They ended up hiring Francisco’s parents to do it.

 

Allende massively increased spending, especially on social programs.  Within 2 years, the inflation rate in Chile was 140% and Chilean GDP was actually in the negative.  There were numerous strikes by workers and the country defaulted on foreign debt.  Allende was accused by the Chilean congress and the Chilean Supreme Court of abusing his Executive powers “ruling by decree, thwarting the normal legislative system”.  His response to these accusations was to complain that “Parliament has made itself a bastion against the transformations . . . and has done everything it can to perturb the functioning of the finances and of the institutions, sterilizing all creative initiatives.” 

 

In a speech in Las Vegas in October, 2011, President Obama said “We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job”. “Where they won’t act, I will.”  Sound familiar?

Francisco came to Washington, DC to oppose Obamacare because he didn’t want the United States of America to end up like Chile.  He said the similarities were frightening. After researching Allende’s Presidency I have to agree.  That’s why I’m talking to you every day.  We can learn from these other countries.  We have one more chance to stop Obama and the Democrats and their socialist agenda this election.  Our Constitution can’t save us if no one pays attention to it.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

39. The Progressive Agenda

39.  The Progressive Agenda

 

Obamacare isn’t a new idea. Remember when Hillary Clinton tried to get “HillaryCare” passed in the 1990’s. That wasn’t the first time either. The Progressive Movement, present in America for over 90 years, has been trying to get government in charge of the healthcare system since Woodrow Wilson.  Listen to the words of our most famous Progressive, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1932:  “our task is not discovery… or necessarily producing more goods.  It is the soberer, less dramatic business…of distributing wealth and products more equitably…the day of enlightened administration has come…”  In discussing the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, he said:  “The task of statesmanship has always been the re-definition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order.”  In other words, he and his fellow Progressives saw it as their task to re-define our rights as American citizens.  And they’ve been very busy doing just that.

 

In 1963 President Kennedy tried to get Medicare passed.  At that time, the American Medical Association represented 70% of physicians in this country.  The AMA then was very conservative, with conservative leadership.  They vehemently opposed Medicare as a form of socialized medicine.  As a result, Medicare was voted down.  Under Johnson however it was revived and passed thru Congress in 1965.

 

Since that time, the progressive movement has managed to assume leadership roles in, I would say, most of the professional organizations in medicine, including the AMA, and most of the specialty medical societies.  Our medical schools are becoming increasingly progressive, teaching concepts like “social justice”, and encouraging sacrifice in the name of “society as a whole”.  The Hippocratic Oath is being altered to include progressive terminology at many schools.

 

I am not exaggerating when I say that the very core of my beliefs as a physician are being threatened by the progressive notions of treating societies rather than patients, of making decisions for “the good of the whole” rather than for the good of the individual.  I will be threatened and punished for practicing my art as I was originally trained.  If Obamacare is allowed to go into full effect, I will absolutely quit practicing.  And I’m not the only one.  Not only will I refuse to be coerced into compliance with a system that I abhor; but I will not be a collaborator in the socialization of my country.  Will you? 

 

The Progressive movement has finally gotten their healthcare law.  God help us if they get to keep it.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

38. Lesson in Socialism

38.  Lesson in Socialism

 

This story has been making its way around the internet, but it is such a great story, I have to include it in our healthcare discussions.   This story explains perfectly why the concept of socialism can never really work.  Here goes:

An college economics professor made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A….

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D!  No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that. 

Now imagine what will happen if your health, your very life, is left up to system run by people who have no motivation to do their best for you.  Welcome to socialized healthcare. 

Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.  For America, this one is either Pass or Fail.  Either we continue to go down the one-way road to Socialism or we make a U-turn back to Freedom.  We cannot have it both ways. 

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

37. Follow the Money

37.  Follow the Money

 

So if this Obamacare thing is so terrible, you ask, why did the AMA, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and the AARP all endorse it?  Unfortunately, the answer is simple:  Follow the money.

 

Obamacare cuts $716 billion from Medicare.  $136 billion of that comes out of Medicare Advantage—a Medicare option wherein patients can buy an upgraded Medicare policy thru a private insurer.  The federal government subsidizes these policies to keep the premiums low enough for seniors to afford.  That subsidy will go away over the next 10 years.  Since this option won’t be available for seniors, the market for supplemental health insurance for Medicare patients will increase…a lot.  And guess who sells a lot of supplemental health insurance policies---you guessed it, AARP.  So the AARP sold out their members so they could rake in the profits.

 

The American Medical Association sold out their members as well.  They have a monopoly on the publication and sale of the codebooks that every healthcare provider has to use in order to bill for services, so they can get paid.  Every provider has at least one set of these books in their offices. The AMA makes about 5 times as much money on these books as they do in membership dues.   Guess who granted the AMA the monopoly on the code books?   Yep, the federal government.  Think that entered the discussion at all when the administration was asking for their endorsement of Obamacare?

 

We talked about how the insurance industry sold out their agents and brokers with the Medical Loss Ratio and the state healthcare exchanges.  Imagine how many more policies they anticipate issuing because of the Individual Mandate requirement that every American now have insurance or pay a tax.  And the American Hospital Association loves the Accountable Care Organization model that puts them in charge of the patients for a change, instead of the doctors.  The hospitals will get to choose how the money is distributed in most of the models.  How could they resist that?

 

Politicians were bribed, and if that didn’t work, they were threatened.  The list goes on and on.  This law brought out the very worst of politics.  And in my opinion, it will destroy the very best of America.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

36. Medical Loss Ratio

36.  Medical Loss Ratio

 

Today we’re going to discuss Medical Loss Ratios, MLRs. I know, sounds as exciting as a root canal, but you’re gonna wanna hear about this!  In Obamacare, the Medical Loss Ratio, or MLR rules say that, for every dollar of premium payment paid into an insurance company, 80-85 cents has to be paid out in direct medical care to the patient.  Wow—that sounds great!  Let’s make those greedy insurance companies pay!  Guess again!  The 15-20 cents left over isn’t enough to pay for the insurers overhead AND pay their insurance agents and brokers.  Already, the agents that I’ve talked to in Colorado are seeing a 30-50% decrease in their income from commissions!  These agents and brokers will be put out of business.  Now why would the insurance companies let that happen??  Is it because they’re planning on having the state healthcare exchanges take the place of the insurance agents.   Afterall, the exchange is just a glorified insurance brockerage, but it’s PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYERS.  The insurers aren’t stupid!  They’re more than happy to let taxpayers handle this expense, while they expect millions of new insurance policies to be purchased, primarily by the taxpayers, with premium subsidies paid for by the taxpayers, due to the individual mandate.  So the insurance companies have bought into Obamacare and they’ve sold out their agents.

 

Now, some states applied for a waiver from the MLR requirement in the law.  They had to show that compliance with the MLR in their state would “destabilize the insurance market”.  The latest numbers are that 17 states applied for a waiver, but only 7 states were actually granted some form of a waiver. Nevada was one of those states.  Hold on…isn’t Nevada where the Democrat leader of the Senate, Harry Reid is from?  Didn’t he push this law through?  And now his state is granted a waiver while 10 other states weren’t. 

 

Aren’t you tired of hearing about special treatment, secret deals, “making up the rules as we go along” behavior from this administration?  How “fair” do you think these people will be when it comes to your pacemaker, diabetes treatment, or cancer therapy?  The Democrats preach “fairness”.  Well, I think it’s only fair to hold them accountable for their healthcare law—vote them out of Washington. Make them try to find a job out here like the folks who are losing their jobs because of Obamacare.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

36. Lizard in a White Coat

36.  Lizard in a White Coat

 

So last week we talked about how the Accountable Care Organizations are going to incentivize your doctor to withhold potentially necessary tests and treatments, or at least limit your options.  We’ve talked about how the Medical Loss Ratio requirement of insurance companies will put insurance agents and brokers out of business, and how the Obama Administration is once again playing favorites with your healthcare.  And we talked about how the State Healthcare Exchanges will limit your choices in insurance coverage and cost you as a taxpayer lots more money…money that you could be spending on your child’s education, or saving for your retirement.  In fact, in Colorado, 85% of the residents probably will never actually USE the exchange—but we’ll be the ones paying for it.

 

What if we took a lesson from Louisianna and used an internet portal for our healthcare insurance?  They have access to over 150 different insurance plan options from companies all over the country.  They get to shop around for the policy that best suits their needs AND their pocketbook.  We wouldn’t need to spend tens of millions of dollars to start and run yet another giant government bureaucracy—one that still won’t meet our needs, and that many of us will never even use.

 

What if we get rid of the long list of required insurance coverages—coverages that most of us will never use, but that we’ll have to pay for so others can use it—and allow us to purchase insurance from any company in the country.  That will further decrease our insurance costs by allowing nationwide competition.  Imagine getting your health insurance from the same company that provides you auto, home and life insurance.  You could get discounts for multiple policies and healthy lifestyle choices.  If you don’t smoke, have a healthclub membership, keep your weight under control and manage your diabetes, you get a discount.  You could join a huge risk pool with others throughout the country—not just those in your small business or state.  That alone would make health insurance so much more affordable for everyone.  We don’t need an Accountable Care Organization that will limit our choices to doctors and services.  We want MORE choice, MORE flexibility, MORE competition, MORE service, LESS government involvement and LESS cost.  Obamacare gives us exactly the opposite.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

33. 34. State Healthcare Exchanges 1 and 2

33.  State Healthcare Exchanges 1

 

So Obamacare claims it will insure “everyone”.   Well, we’ve already shown that that’s not true.  This law plans to expand Medicaid and other government-run insurance programs in order to insure another 30 million or so Americans, but how?  Well, through the establishment of State Healthcare Exchanges.  Each state is supposed to set up yet another government bureaucracy that will act essentially like an insurance brokerage, helping folks to find an insurance plan that works for them.  Sounds good, right?  What could be wrong with that?  Lots of things!

 

First of all, we don’t need them!  We have thousands of private insurance agents who make their living providing advice and guidance on insurance products that individuals or businesses can access for their healthcare.  There are problems with the system, granted, but the agents themselves, and their role, is not one of those problems.

 

The REAL purpose of the Obamacare exchanges is to distribute our taxpayer dollars to people who go thru the exchange for their health insurance.  Unless a patient goes thru the exchange, they won’t be eligible for what is called a “premium subsidy”: money to help them pay for the very expensive policies that everyone will be required to buy under the law.  According to Obamacare, a family making up to $89,000 a year can qualify for money to help them pay for their insurance policy—a policy that the government forces them to purchase or face a penalty of thousands of dollars a year.  And with an expected premium price of $13-20,000 per year, it’s not a wonder that they’ll need help paying for it!

 

If an insurance exchange is such a great idea, and so necessary, let the insurance companies, or some other private entity, do it.  Oh wait, they already have done it!  Ehealthinsurance.com is an online business that already does that!  In fact, the state of Louisianna already uses ehealthinsurance.com for their state insurance exchange—they’ve had it running for years.  It cost about $1.5 million to set up and about $1 million per year to run.  Contrast that to the $45 million that Colorado is already set to spend setting up their exchange—taxpayer dollars mind you.  And Colorado doesn’t even know how much it’ll cost in taxpayer dollars to continue to run it every year after that.  Do you hear a giant sucking sound?  That’s the money being sucked out of your child’s college fund, or your retirement account.

 

So the government will be spending billions of dollars of our hard-earned money to pay for a bureaucracy we don’t need, to force us to buy insurance we don’t want, at a price that we can’t afford.  Are you kidding me??

 

 

 

 

 

 

34. State Health Exchanges 2

 

The implementation of Obamacare hinges on the establishment of healthcare exchanges in every state.  Without the exchanges, Obamacare would be unenforceable, impotent. These exchanges will be either government or non-profit private entities.  The policies they will offer will be required to meet the criteria of what they are calling a “qualified health plan”—that is, a plan that includes a set list of mandates or coverages.  We already talked about the fact that the more coverages that are included in an insurance policy, the more expensive the premiums are.  The final official list of mandates hasn’t been released yet, but when the law was passed, the list included things like emergency care, hospitalization, mental health services, maternity and newborn care, pediatric services and vaccinations, preventive services, things like that.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t need maternity care or pediatric services.  But anyone getting a policy thru the exchange will have to pay for it.  With a few minor exceptions, all policies offered thru an exchange will be the same—there’s almost no flexibility.  No policies sold thru the exchange can offer fewer coverages—which would make them more affordable of course—nope, can’t have that.

 

So, how are all the states doing with setting up these exchanges?  The deadline to submit a plan to the Secretary of HHS is November 13, 2012, so they don’t have much time.  As of Sept 12, 2012, 18 states and the District of Columbia have agreed to set up exchanges.  So 32 states are either refusing to set up an exchange, or they’re waiting to see what happens with this election.  But get this—not one state has a completed plan for an exchange that has been approved by the government yet!  Not one.

 

 Now, if a state doesn’t set up an Exchange that’s acceptable to Secretary Sebelius, the Federal government will supposedly come in and set one up.  So much for states’ rights, the 10^th Amendment.  Funny thing is tho’—according to the Obamacare law, if an exchange is set up by the Fed, there can’t be any premium subsidies or penalties on employers.  Well now, that just negates the whole purpose for the exchanges, doesn’t it!  So now, President Obama has decided that he can ignore what the law says and just give the right to distribute subsidies and penalize employers to the IRS—which is apparently not supposed to be allowed under our laws.  Does this administration think that they can just make up the laws?  Force sovereign states to set up bureaucracies that they’ll have to pay for?  Force American citizens to purchase a product just because the Democrats think they should?   That’s exactly what they think.  And that’s exactly why they need to be voted out of office.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

32. Consequences of ACOs

32.  Consequences of ACOs

 

Yesterday, we learned about the Accountable Care Organizations and how they will reward providers for NOT giving potentially needed testing and care.  Now let’s talk about some other consequences of these organizations.

 

The ACOs are intended to provide comprehensive services for patients all in one place.  Sounds good so far, but think about it:  are all of your doctors and therapists in one institution?  Maybe you have an orthopedic surgeon that you really like in one area of town, your cardiologist is somewhere else and your primary care doc is in another area.  Under the ACO plan, you would be apportioned to a single group of providers—a group that may or may not include doctors that you like.  In the law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to even assign you to an ACO, regardless of your wishes.  Are you kidding me?? She also has the authority to change your Prescription Drug plan if she thinks it justified. What country are we living in again??

 

Right now, 50% of physicians are employed by large medical group organizations, like Kaiser, or they’ve sold their practices to a hospital.  50%.  Why have they made this choice?  Mostly because they are fed up with the government regulations and bureaucracy.  Many because they can’t make a living anymore due to high overhead costs and malpractice insurance.  Once these ACOs go into effect, a physician in private practice will find it even more difficult to stay in business:  see the ACOs will control patient referrals.  If a doc isn’t a member of an ACO, and forced to abide by their rules, they may not have a patient base large enough to support their practice.

 

And you can forget about the independent outpatient surgery and imaging centers—centers that provide excellent care at a fraction of the cost of a hospital.  It will be the end of private practice and competition.  This is not what our country was meant to be!  America was founded on the notion that each citizen has the right and opportunity to prosper by providing a product or service that could create wealth for the innovator.  If the product was not desired by the consumer, the business would fail.  In the ACO model, we won’t have a choice.  There will be no other alternatives.  Our ability to control our lives through our consumer decisions will be gone.  An almighty government bureaucracy will be making those decisions for us.  Is that what you want? 

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

31. Accountable Care Organizations

31.  Accountable Care Organizations

 

Another way Obamacare plans to control costs is through the establishment of Accountable Care Organizations, ACOs.  These are essentially HMOs on steroids.  These ACOs will centralize care of a patient within a large organization, similar in many ways to Kaiser, but with important differences.  A hospital or insurance company will control the ACO and providers such as doctors, physical therapists, laboratory services, will all be under their control.   The government will apportion an amount of money to the ACO and the administrator of that ACO (the hospital or insurer) will determine, based on “quality measures” determined by the federal government, who will be rewarded with a bonus and who will be punished. In plain terms, this means that your doctor will be rewarded for NOT performing tests or NOT giving expensive treatments, and may be financially punished if they don’t play along.   To me, this is not only warped, it’s unethical. 

 

In the 1990s Hillary Clinton proposed the same scheme and, even though her plan never became law, many healthcare groups around the country enacted her proposals in anticipation of what is now known as “Hillarycare”.  It took us 10 years to recover.   First we had hiring freezes, and then we ended up with specialty physician shortages.  It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.

 

I guess the reason for that is that back then, doctors weren’ t trained to withhold necessary care from their patients.  Every human life was considered valuable and sacred.  Unfortunately, medical schools have had 15 years to train new medical students to think otherwise.  Many of our medical schools have been indoctrinating our future physicians to think more about the “collective”, society as a whole.  Many medical schools have even altered the Hippocratic Oath so that it focuses more on social justice than on integrity to the individual patient.  Is this the kind of training you want for your physician? Someone who cares more about what best for some concept of “society” than what’s best for you as a person?

 

Let’s just hope that we can get this law repealed before the next generation of indoctrinated medical professionals enters the workforce.  Folks, the progressive movement has been trying to nationalize healthcare in America for about 90 years.  This may be our last chance to stop it.


(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

30. Privatize, privatize, privatize

So this week we’ve talked about all of the new taxes that Obamacare imposes
that will affect all Americans. These new taxes will be used to pay for new
mountains of bureaucracy that will make the VA system look like a well-oiled
machine. We’ve also talked about the risks of increasing dependence on
government in our lives. I have a better idea:

First, let’s let private insurers compete for Medicare patients like Vice-
presidential candidate Congressman Paul Ryan and Democrat Senator Ron Wyden
are proposing. We discussed this plan last week.

Now, let’s give a set amount of money directly to the states for Medicaid and
let them figure out what will work best in their particular state, based on their
resources and population. Some states have already proposed using health
savings accounts with high deductible private insurance for their Medicaid
patients, allowing them to control their healthcare dollars. Indiana uses HSAs for
their government employees and it’s saved them millions of dollars.

Then, let’s let Americans save more of their own money, tax free, for their
healthcare expenses. Come to think of it, how about letting them save more for
retirement, so we don’t have to depend on a failing Social Security system. How
about giving businesses the freedom to help their employees save more for their
healthcare and retirement. Then, we can afford to have a true safety net for
those that truly need it.

Now, let’s shut down the VA hospitals and send our brave veterans to private
hospitals, where they will get the VIP treatment they deserve.

Imagine how much money that will save the American taxpayers—hundreds of
billions of dollars every year that’s now spent on ever-increasing government
bureaucracies, staffed by unionized government workers with lucrative pensions
that we cannot afford. Combine these savings with those of Health savings
accounts, tax breaks for medical expenses, posting prices for health services
and increasing flexibility in choosing insurance plans—now we’re talkin real
cost savings for the entire country and everyone in it. Now we’re talking about
patients really getting access to affordable, quality healthcare.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

29. To be or not to be….Dependent? That is the Question

The way I see it, there are 3 groups of people politically: one group wants to just
be allowed to live their lives; government’s role for them is for the protection
of their basic rights. The second group wants to control the lives and decisions
of everyone else. They tend to aspire to positions of power, including elected
office! The third group consists of those who don’t want to take responsibility for
their lives or decisions—they want to be provided for, and to be “given” security.
Unfortunately, the last 2 groups tend to get along quite well… at the expense of
the first group!

We have allowed our government to pay for more and more of our lifetime
expenses: welfare, aid to dependent children, Medicaid, medicare, social
security, food stamps. Unfortunately, the recipients have grown to forget that
most of these programs aren’t paid for by the “government”—they’re paid for
by other Americans. The government takes our hard-earned money, wastes a
bunch of it, divies up what’s left, and then makes us feel as if they’ve “given” us
something that we couldn’t have gotten on our own.

When we become dependent upon government for our basic life needs, we
simultaneously relinquish our freedoms to make our own decisions about those
lives. Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: “Those who would sacrifice freedom for
security deserve neither.”

Such is the case with Obamacare. The Democrats who drafted and passed this
law have sold it to Americans as the ultimate version of “government taking care
of its people”. In reality, they are robbing us of our most basic constitutional
rights: liberty, property, religious freedom, perhaps even life. They are taking
freedom from 85% of our citizens in the name of “taking care of” 15%. Why are
we putting up with this???

Where in our constitution does it say that the government has the right to take
money from us to pay for institutions that only serve to make us increasingly
dependent on the one thing that the constitution was meant to protect us
from—our government?

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

28. The VA Hospital System

Ever wonder what government-run healthcare will be like? Well, wonder no
more! We already have it in this country—it’s the Veteran’s Administration
Hospital system—the VA! I did years of my medical training in this system, and I
have colleagues that are working there today. Let’s take a look at this marvel of
government-run healthcare:

The bureaucracy is unmatched in my 25 years of medical training and practice.
Patients may spend years trying to get access to care, even if it’s related to
active duty during wartime—just ask our Viet Nam vets who were exposed
to Agent Orange. At our local VA hospital, the wait time for spine surgery by
a neurosurgeon is up to 16 months. That’s right up there with the Canadian
healthcare system.

The VA hospitals are staffed by government employees—low-level administrators,
nursing staff, clerks…many with the work ethic we’ve come to appreciate at the
DMV. The process for hiring new nurses, for instance, may take over 3 months—
just to get thru the normal channels of command. No quality nurse is going to
endure that sort of run-around when she can get a great job at a private hospital
within a week.

Now, try to fire a government employee—good luck! Is this the atmosphere you
want surrounding you when you need medical attention, when you’re at your
most vulnerable, treatment that may determine whether you live or die?

When I was a radiology resident, we had to get special permission to use a
contrast agent for CAT scans that was well-proven to cause fewer allergic
reactions than the older-version. All of the private hospitals used this more
expensive, but much safer, contrast agent as routine. But not the VA—it was
cheaper for the government to take a chance that my patient would have a
severe, perhaps life-threatening, allergic reaction. That’s how the government
makes healthcare decisions.

Supporters of Obamacare claim that opponents are just speculating when they
criticize the notion of government-run healthcare. The fact is, we don’t have to
guess—we just look at the VA hospital.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

27. Healthcare IS the Economy

Let’s talk about how Obamacare will affect businesses in this country. Yesterday
I mentioned the new taxes on insurance companies, medical device and
pharmaceutical manufacturers, and personal investments, including real estate.
These taxes will cost all Americans, not just the millionaires and billionaires.

There are thousands of business owners who plan to stop offering health
insurance to their employees altogether due to the high cost of the new policies
they will be required to get through the healthcare exchanges and private
insurers. As a result, thousands of business owners will be “taxed” $2000 for
each of their employees. So much for job creation…

There are increased taxes on employers for Medicare part D coverage for their
retired employees.

There is a whopping 40% tax on what they call “Cadillac” insurance policies—
those that have very high premiums. Before you say, “those millionaires and
billionaires can afford it”, consider that, by 2018 when this provision takes affect,
a great number of the insurance policies out there may qualify for this tax!! Oh
but wait…that tax applies to all companies except labor unions. What…you
didn’t know that? Yep, labor unions are exempt. Still think Obama cares
about “Fairness”??

And we haven’t even talked about how the states are going to pay for their new
healthcare exchanges—exchanges that they will be forced to support on their
own starting in 2016 when the federal support, paid for by our tax dollars, runs
out. Estimates are that the running of these new bureaucracies could be up to
$30Million per year for each state. Think your state will be looking for new ways
to tax you and your employer as well?

There’s a popular saying regarding the key issue in this election: “It’s about the
economy stupid”. Considering all of the new taxes, the effect on investments
and the real estate market, the effect on employers, and the disruption of
our healthcare system that makes up 1/6 of our economy, in my opinion, this
healthcare law IS about the economy...stupid!

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

26. War on Taxpayers

All you taxpayers out there, Hold onto your wallets! Obamacare is set to tax
everything having to do with healthcare, and I mean everything.

First, let’s remember that all costs are passed on: The Federal government passes
their expenses to the states and taxpayers; states pass theirs on to businesses
and taxpayers; businesses pass their costs on to their customers; employers
pass expenses on to employees, or they lay workers off, or they don’t hire new
employees. Even those who don’t pay federal income taxes are customers and
employees. In other words, every single American, poor, middle class, and
wealthy, will be paying something in new taxes from Obamacare.

There are taxes on insurance providers, passed on to their customers in higher
premiums. There are taxes on medical device and pharmaceutical companies
that will be passed on to the patients that need to use these products.

There will be a new tax on income from investments; which will include the sale
of your home—3.8%. The calculations are tedious, but this tax will affect millions
of middle class Americans and those on fixed incomes—Americans whose homes
represent their largest lifetime investment. And imagine what it will do to the
already depressed real estate market.

There are higher Medicare taxes. Decreased tax breaks for medical expense
accounts and medical expenses. And my personal favorite—the 10% tax on
indoor tanning services! Where did that come from??

Seems like I’m forgetting one….Oh yeah, the “tax” to be imposed on American
patients who realize that they can’t afford the premiums of Obama’s new health
insurance policies –estimated to be $13-20,000/year for a family of 4 by 2016.
The “tax” will be $695 per person per year, or 2.5% of your income, whichever is
larger. Chaaaching!

Tell me again how this law is supposed to make our lives better?? Sounds to me
like a War on Taxpayers.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

25. The Tenth Amendment

Obamacare is not the first time some form of socialized medicine has been tried
in the United States. The Constitution grants certain powers to the Federal
government. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that any powers not
specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution are granted to
the states and people. Some states have already tried versions of government-
controlled healthcare:

In 1974 Hawaii started the Individual Mandate Plan
In 1993 there was the Washington State Health Plan
In 1994 there was the Oregon Health Plan and TennCare in Tennessee
In 2005 Maine started the Dirigo Health Plan
In 2006 Massachusetts started the Connector Plan and Commonwealth Care, also
known as Romneycare

All of these plans included many of the same elements as Obamacare: individuals
and employer mandates requiring the purchase of insurance; price controls on
payments to doctors and providers; government controls on insurance premiums;
long lists of services that each insurance policy must cover; decreased flexibility
in choices to the patients; guarantee issue of insurance regardless of pre-existing
conditions; and expansion of Medicaid enrollment to covered the uninsured. The
results for each of these programs was similar: healthcare costs skyrocketed;
taxes increased; insurance carriers left the state; patients had more difficulty
finding doctors and providers to take care of them due to low reimbursement;
in many cases, the number of uninsured actually increased. Some states were
nearly bankrupted.

The biggest problem is trying to get rid of these programs once they’re in place.
Can you imagine what will happen when an entire country experiences these
same problems because of government controlled healthcare?

Control of Healthcare was not among the powers granted to the federal
government. Technically, the argument could be made that Medicare is
Unconstitutional. Let’s face it…Government controlled healthcare doesn’t work.
It robs us of our choices and our money. Plus…It’s not their job.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

24. Winners and Losers

Obamacare requires all employers with more than 50 full-time employees to
offer health insurance or pay a penalty of $2000 per employee. All employers
with more than 200 employees are required to automatically enroll them in their
healthcare plan. Employers with fewer than 50 employees are expected to get
their insurance through the state healthcare exchanges. If an employer offers
a healthcare plan, but it is deemed not “affordable” by a series of complicated
calculations, the employee has the option of going directly to the state exchange
for insurance, where they may be eligible for a premium subsidy to help pay
for their policy. If this happens, the employer will be fined $3000 for that
employee. That’s more than what the employer would have to pay if he didn’t
offer insurance at all! Now consider that the cost of an average insurance policy
through the exchange was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to
be about $19,200 for a family of four by at least 2016—that’s a lot of money.
Needless to say, a lot of employers can’t afford to offer an insurance plan that
expensive. As a result, many of them are planning to drop their health insurance
benefits altogether—that could actually increase the number of uninsured!

So the Obama administration decided to offer “waivers” for some employers.
They could continue to offer minimal health insurance policies to their
employees, so they could stay in business. Funny thing though—not everyone
who applied for a waiver was granted one. The Secretary of Health and Human
Services got to decide who did and didn’t get a waiver. And guess what—of the
waivers granted, a huge proportion were given to, get this, labor unions—yeah,
the same organizations that spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect the
people that put Obamacare into law! What’s wrong with this picture?? The very
people who pushed this law onto America are the first ones in line to get out of
having to comply with it!

So we have an administration that passes a monstrous, heinous piece of
legislation, and then gets to say who has to abide by that law. When did this
become acceptable? Obama’s administration has become famous for their
practice of choosing “winners and losers”.

Unfortunately, America is the biggest loser in this game.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

23. Individual Mandate

Both Romneycare in Massachusetts and Obamacare require all individuals to carry health
insurance, and both penalize people who don’t. In addition, both plans require insurance
companies to issue insurance to anyone at any time, regardless of pre-existing conditions.
This is referred to as “guarantee issue”. All this sounds great right? Let’s look at how this
works for some folks in Massachusetts: in 2010, an insurance policy for a family of 4 in
Massachusetts was between $15-20,000—that’s a lot of money. So many folks decided not
to get insurance and just pay the relatively small penalty rather than the high premiums.
When they got sick, they were guaranteed a new health insurance policy. They’d pay the
premiums, have their medical expenses covered, then drop the policy when they were well
again. Gee….what’s wrong with this picture? Isn’t everyone just supposed to have insurance
all the time? Can’t everyone just play nice and be responsible? Of course, with Obamacare,
things will be different, right?

Let’s face it folks—the minute a new rule is made, someone is going to find a way to get
around it! Then they make another rule to get around that, and the cycle begins. Pretty soon,
we have millions of pages of rules and a system that still doesn’t work. Rather than forcing
people to get insurance, forcing insurance companies to issue insurance, and forcing doctors
to lose money seeing Medicare and Medicaid patients, how about fixing the system by getting
RID of some of the rules? Give doctors, patients, states and insurers the flexibility to make a
few rules of their own; and then GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THEIR WAY!! How about
encouraging patients to save money to take care of themselves, rather than forcing them
to depend on government programs? We could save Medicare and Social Security just by
allowing people to save their own money through tax incentives. There will always be those
people who need extra help, due to circumstances beyond their control. So let’s let private
charities and the government help those folks, and let us take care of ourselves! As for
those of our citizens who are perfectly capable of caring for themselves, but who refuse…
well, it’s time they learn to live with the consequences of their decisions. It is not my duty to
support them and they do not have the right to steal from me. If they incur medical expenses,
they should be required to pay for them. Period. So let’s lower healthcare costs thru the
marketplace and make it more affordable for folks to have insurance. Government control is
not the answer.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

22. Romneycare vs. Obamacare

Let’s face it—there are a lot of similarities between Romneycare in
Massachussetts and Obamacare: they both use state exchanges to administer
government and private insurance; they both expand Medicaid to cover the
uninsured; they both require that all citizens have “minimum” health insurance
or else they have to pay a fine; and they each require insurance companies to
issue policies to anyone at any time, regardless of pre-existing conditions. We’ll
discuss all of these points in time, but let’s suffice it to say that Romneycare in
Massachusetts isn’t exactly a model of healthcare success. Thankfully, Gov.
Romney doesn’t plan to institute Romneycare on a national level!! In fact, his
ideas for healthcare reform for America are totally different---they’re market-
based and I fully support them, but we’ll talk about all that later.

So, how is Obamacare different than Romneycare? Well, since Romneycare
hasn’t been very good at controlling healthcare costs in Massachusetts,
Obamacare plans to control costs through a combination of healthcare rationing,
and increasing taxes. We’ll talk about the new taxes in Obamacare later in more
detail, but there are roughly 22 new taxes in the law. And that doesn’t include
the Supreme Court decision that established the Individual Mandate as a massive
new tax that will affect primarily the poor and middle classes—one of the largest
in American history!

Obamacare will limit patient’s choices regarding their diagnostic tests and
treatments in basically 5 ways: we’ve already discussed the Independent
Payment advisory board, the $716 Billion dollars in Medicare cuts, and
Comparative Effectiveness. The other 2 ways are through the US Preventive
Services Task Force guidelines; and through Accountable Care Organizations.
We’ll discuss these last 2 in more detail starting next week.

So Obamacare forces us to participate in a system that will increase our taxes
AND decrease our freedom as patients to make our own healthcare decisions.
That’s how it differs from Romneycare.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

21. The Ryan-Wyden Plan for Medicare

New Vice-Presidential candidate Congressman Paul Ryan has presented several plans to
reform Medicare over the years. His latest version is a plan developed by him and Democrat
Senator Ron Wyden called the Ryan-Wyden Plan. Here’s how it works:

First of all, and listen carefully—there are no changes at all in Medicare for 10 years. NO
CURRENT MEDICARE PATIENTS, AND NO ONE THAT IS NOW OVER THE AGE OF 55 WILL HAVE ANY CHANGES IN THEIR MEDICARE BENEFITS. That right there is a significant change from Obamacare. IF these patients want to participate in the Ryan-Wyden plan, they have that
option, but they are not obligated to, and they will NEVER be required to.

Ok, back to the plan. Each year, private insurance companies will submit a bid to the
government outlining what they will charge in premiums for a comprehensive health
insurance policy for persons 65 and over. The second lowest premium cost will determine the
amount of money given to each Medicare patient. Sicker and poorer patients will receive a
higher payment, and bids will vary by region. The Medicare patient then uses that money to
shop for and purchase their own health insurance policy from a private insurer. If they choose
a policy that costs more than the voucher, they pay the difference. If they choose a policy that
costs less, like a high deductible/health savings account plan, or one of the lower premium
plans, the money that’s left over goes into a health savings account for that patient. In other
words, Medicare patients will be guaranteed a voucher that will completely pay for at least 2
different comprehensive health insurance policies.

An article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimated that this
plan would have premium costs 9% lower than typical Medicare costs—that’s huge!! It will
increase competition, thereby driving down premium costs even more over time, AND it
allows Medicare patients flexibility that they do not currently have.

Now, it’s important to know that the ads that President Obama is running are not factual! His
claims about the Ryan health plan are actually referring to an older version, NOT his newest
Ryan-Wyden plan. I just think it’s pretty pathetic when a sitting President who has easy access
to the facts, misrepresents them so blatantly. As a future Medicare enrollee, I’ll take Ryan-
Wyden any day!

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

20. Baby Steps

In Obamacare, the wording in different sections contradicts itself, but it claims
that federal taxpayer dollars cannot be used to fund abortion. Now, the actual
rule released regarding abortion funding will place a mandatory $1 surcharge on
most insurance plans to pay for free abortion coverage. So, even though our tax
dollars won’t be paying for abortion, Obama’s administration figured out a way to
make us pay for it.

Included in the list of mandatory coverages with no co-pay under Obamacare
will be sterilization “for any female of reproductive age”. That means that girls
as young as 11 or 12 could be sterilized for free. In the state of Oregon, a 15-
yr old girl can legally consent for medical procedures. So if you live in Oregon,
your 15 yr old daughter could have her tubes tied without your knowledge as her
parent. Of course, the supporters of Obamacare think that free contraception,
free abortion and free sterilization is a great triumph for women’s rights. Anyone
who disagrees is waging a “War on Women”.

Considering that Obamacare will tell us what healthcare we can and can’t have,
how hard will it be for them to tell us what we MUST have??

In 1927 the Supreme Court ruled on Buck v Bell, a case where a mentally
deficient girl was sterilized against her will. The Supreme Court decided that
her sterilization was justified. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion.
Listen to this: “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call
upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon
those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices… in
order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the
world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let
them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly
unfit from continuing their kind.”

That ruling resulted in over 65,000 sterilization procedures being done on “unfit”
American citizens in 30 states.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

19. War on Women 3

We’ve spent the last 2 days talking about the government’s screening
mammography guidelines, but there’s one last thing I wanted to mention about
them:

We talked a couple weeks ago about the dangers of “evidence-based medicine”
and how it sounds great, but how it can hamper the development of new
technology. Well, after looking at a bunch of research studies, the government
mammography task force came to the conclusion that having doctors examine
their patients’ breasts for lumps actually causes more problems than it solves….in
fact, they even recommend that women not check their own breasts for cancer!!
So let me get this straight: a 40 year old woman is at risk for the most aggressive
breast cancers and is more likely to die of cancer if she has it, but she isn’t
supposed to get a mammogram, she’s not supposed to go to her doctor for a
breast exam, and she’s not supposed to examine her own breasts to see if she has
a lump. Exactly how are we supposed to find her cancer????

And why do we even need these government task forces? We have the American
Cancer Society, the Komen Foundation, multiple physician specialty societies…all
of whom review medical research to develop clinical practice guidelines that are
best for the patients. Maybe that’s the problem. These charity and professional
groups are acting on behalf of the patients, not the government…not on behalf of
society as a whole, the collective.

So Obamacare wants to protect our rights as women. Our rights to have an
abortion—for free; our right to be sterilized from the time of our first menstrual
period—for free; our right to get contraceptives if we decide not to be
sterilized—for free. Obamacare even gives others the right to help us to commit
suicide without penalty. But Obamacare will prevent us access to a life saving
mammogram. So they’re great at protecting my right not to create life. How
about my right to life?

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

18. War on Women 2

We talked about the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines issued in
November 2009 that would decrease screening mammography in women by 60-
75% and how that would potentially cost thousands of women their lives. Here’s
more of the story:

When the guidelines were released—even before Obamacare was passed—there
was an enormous outcry—from doctors, patients, husbands, sisters, brothers,
even politicians. Every person in this country is affected in one way or other
by breast cancer or knows someone who has been. The panel of government-
appointed bureaucrats who had made up the guidelines did not include a single
practicing physician that specializes in breast disease. Not one. These new
guidelines completely contradicted those of the Komen Society and the American
Cancer Society, as well as all of the specialty medical societies that deal with
breast cancer. So Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
quietly put a new provision into Obamacare. It says that Obamacare will abide by
the 2002 task force guidelines instead. They didn’t openly discredit or eliminate
the 2009 guidelines, they just tabled them. Why would they do that? Do you
think they’re waiting until after the election? Or until the rest of the law is in
force in 2014-- when we can’t get rid of it anymore?

In Obamacare, I as a physician will be required to abide by all of the guidelines
set up by these task forces. If I disagree with the guidelines, and issue my
own recommendations I will be punished: I will not be paid, and if I’m really
naughty, I could be fined or barred from seeing government program and state
exchange insurance patients. These guidelines will force me as a physician to
make a choice: do I do what the government tells me, or do I do what I know to
be right for my patients as individuals? The government makes decisions for
populations, I make decisions for individual patients. I don’t treat Democrats or
Republicans, Catholics or Atheists. I treat people. Government doesn’t spend
29 years in education and training to be a physician like I did. Government isn’t
held accountable for its healthcare recommendations..…I AM. Government
won’t suffer because your disease wasn’t diagnosed or treated—YOU WILL.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

17. War on Women 1

So Obama and the Democrats have declared that the Republicans and Catholics
are waging a “War on Women”. Let’s review some facts:

In November 2009, an Obama administration-appointed panel of bureaucrats
changed the guidelines for screening mammography. This group of bureaucrats
was one of several US Preventive Services Task Forces. The American Cancer
Society set up guidelines years ago that recommended screening mammograms
for all women over 40, to be done every year. We have many excellent studies
that have shown that screening mammograms under these guidelines decreased
the number of women dying of breast cancer by 30-40%. Somehow, this task
force panel, none of whom are physicians specializing in breast cancer, decided
that only women from 50-74 yrs old should get mammograms, and then only
every other year.

The number of women that will be diagnosed with breast cancer has been
increasing, from 1 in 11 in 1996 to 1 in 7 or 8 today. About 80% of women
diagnosed with breast cancer have no significant family history of it. Let me say
that again because I think it’s so important: About 80% of women diagnosed
with breast cancer have no significant family history of it. To truly understand
the impact of these new guidelines consider that the most aggressive and life-
threatening breast cancers occur in women under 50, and women are more
likely to get breast cancer as they get older. Breast cancer is becoming more
and more common. In addition, most breast cancers are found by screening
mammography, and at a very early stage so that women have a high likelihood of
complete CURE with relatively minimal treatment. Under these new guidelines,
women will be diagnosed later, with more advanced cancer that will require more
aggressive treatments, or it may not even be curable. In other words, WOMEN
WILL SUFFER AND DIE because of government decisions about their healthcare.

The contraception insurance requirements on the Catholic church are NOT about
women—they are about our rights as citizens to religious freedom. The 2009 task
force screening mammography guidelines, on the other hand, are the REAL ‘WAR
ON WOMEN’, and THAT war is being staged by the Obama Administration.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

16. War on Religion

We’ve been hearing a lot from the Democrats about how the Republicans are
staging a “War on Women”. The Obama administration issued a rule that all
employers are now required to include abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives
and sterilization procedures in the insurance plans that they offer to employees.
Typically, this requirement would automatically exclude religious groups that
may object on moral grounds. The first amendment to the Constitution not only
protects our right to free speech and assembly, but also to the free exercise
of religion. Since the Catholic church certainly objects on religious grounds to
these insurance requirements, the Obama administration has declared them to
be “against women”. And of course, since the Republican party has sided with
the Catholic church, the Republicans must be “waging a war on women”.

I find it therefore fascinating that in Title 1, Subtitle F of "Obamacare" members
of religious groups that morally object to the concept of health "insurance" are
exempted from having to pay the annual penalty for not having health insurance.
The groups included here are Amish, Mennonites, and some Muslims. See,
Muslims object to insurance in general since it is considered a form of gambling
in their religion. So, Obama exempts one religious group from compliance based
on their religious convictions, yet forces another to violate theirs. Yet another
example of this administration choosing winners and losers.

So as of last May, 43 separate Catholic entities filed lawsuit in federal court
challenging the constitutionality of the contraception requirement.
The Obama administration changed some of the wording of the rule, but it didn’t
change the real effect.

One thing to consider here: the PPACA law is bad (in my opinion), but now
we are seeing what its supporters really want out of it when these rules and
regulations are being developed. Rules with the force of law. Rules that are
being made by scores of unelected people. People who are not accountable to
we the citizens. When do we get to challenge the Constitutionality of THIS?

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

15. When Government Controls Healthcare

So far, we’ve talked about ways that Obamacare will ration healthcare in this
country and the philosophy behind those ideas. How Hippocrates believed that
doctors should treat all patients throughout their lives, and how that differs from
Plato’s belief that only young, able people should have healthcare. We discussed
how Obama’s health policy advisor follows the Plato view.

We’ve discussed the Independent Payment Advisory Board and how it changes a
government accountable to the voters into one that is not accountable.

We’ve discussed Obamacare’s cuts in Medicare benefits and payments to
providers and how that will limit patient’s access to care by decreasing care and
forcing doctors to stop accepting Medicare patients.

We’ve discussed Obamacare’s encouragement of euthanasia, assisted suicide,
and abortion. In addition, Obmacare also requires physicians to regularly discuss
end-of-life planning with their elderly patients. While I don’t think this is a bad
idea in general, I definitely don’t think the government has any business forcing it
on doctors or their patients. How you as a patient choose to die is none of their
business—at least it shouldn’t be. But because we have, over time, allowed our
health to be paid for by the government, we are now in the position of having a
group of elected officials, and some unelected, that will literally determine for us
whether we are tested for an illness, treated for that illness, and how and when
we will die from our illness. Think about that. When a government controls
healthcare, it control the people. Is that the “hope and change” Americans voted
for in 2008? When Obama said he would “fundamentally change” America, he
wasn’t kidding. He is changing America from a government of the people, by
the people and for the people; to people of the government, by the government
and for the government. It is time to get the government out of the healthcare
business.

Next week we’ll talk about the differences between Obamacare and Gov. Romney
and Paul Ryan’s plans for healthcare reform.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

14. Independent Payment Advisory Board

Obamacare establishes the Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB. Their job is to control
healthcare costs by limiting reimbursement to Medicare providers. Doesn’t sound so bad,
does it? But this is definitely a case of “the devil’s in the details”…

The IPAB is a panel of 15 members, not elected, but appointed by the President and approved
by the Senate. Now it gets interesting: this panel of unelected officials will have the power to
make law. Not rules and regulations with the force of law (which is bad enough), but actual
law. They will do this initially by making recommendations on changes in Medicare payments
to providers. They submit these to Congress and Congress has 4 months to vote “yes” or “no”,
BUT, if they vote “no”, they have to come up with cuts of their own that will equal or exceed
the cuts to Medicare recommended by the IPAB board. If Congress does nothing in 4 months,
the recommendations become LAW.

Because of these cuts, more providers will stop seeing Medicare and Medicaid patients, and
patients will have even longer wait times to see a physician. Many physicians will just leave
practice altogether. This only trades one problem for another: it trades lower costs for
poorer access. And it won’t really lower costs—patients will end up going to the Emergency
room for routine care since it will be easier than trying to find a physician or clinic to see you.
That will actually add to healthcare costs. It will only make a bad situation much worse, for
both patients and providers.

Now think about this from a politician’s standpoint: your congressman needs your vote,
and the support of doctors, hospitals, businesses and patients. The IPAB does not. If your
congressman doesn’t want to risk the consequences of limiting payments to doctors, or
limiting benefits to his constiuents, he’ll just let the IPAB recommendations go thru as law.
When election time rolls around, he can just tell voters that he was unable to stop the IPAB-
afterall, HE didn’t recommend those cuts….Can you see how this works? It’s brilliantly devised
to transfer the burden of controlling healthcare costs from elected Congressmen who have
to answer to voters, to an unaccountable panel of bureaucrats, who do not. In other words,
Obama and the Democrats have taken We the People out of the healthcare equation.

On November 6, 2012, it’s time to take Obama and the Democrats out of the equation.

(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)