Obamacare Update

Posted by Tina

Correction: Buffet’s Still an Obamacare Supporter After All

I was wrong. Warren Buffet still loves Obamacare…and why not? He doesn’t need it and you can bet he is already poised to profit big time from its implementation. He’s a corporatist through and through. His comments about scrapping healthcare were taken out of context from an interview in March of 2010:

Omaha.com:

“I’ve never suggested nor thought Obamacare should be scrapped,” said Buffett, who has supported Obama’s political campaigns. “I support it. It relates to providing medical care for all Americans. That’s something I’ve thought should be done for a long, long time.”

It’s a shame the old guy doesn’t see, or doesn’t care about the train wreck his support has guaranteed for millions of Americans a lot less fortunate than he.

I have crossed out some of the quotes attributed to Buffet as being in reference to Obamacare. I have not deleted the quotes from the article that remain true for many Americans today. Buffet said what we had before Obaamcare was untenable…he can’t possibly believe that Obamacare will do anything but make matters worse.

Two items regarding Obamacare in the news caught my attention today. The first was the startling news that billionaire investor Warren Buffet, who backed Obamacare before it was passed, is now saying we should “scrap it and start over”:

“‘We have a health system that, in terms of costs, is really out of control,’ he added. ‘And if you take this line and you project what has been happening into the future, we will get less and less competitive. So we need something else.’

Buffett insists that without changes to Obamacare average citizens will suffer.

“‘What we have now is untenable over time,’ said Buffett, an early supporter of President Obama. ‘That kind of a cost compared to the rest of the world is really like a tapeworm eating, you know, at our economic body.’

“Buffett does not believe that providing insurance for everyone is the first step to take in correcting our nation’s healthcare system.

“‘Attack the costs first, and then worry about expanding coverage,’ he said. ‘I would much rather see another plan that really attacks costs. And I think that’s what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill.'”

He’s got (some of) that right!

The second story illustrates just one of the many problems that make this law unworkable. It comes to us from Chicago, but you can bet the same thing is happening in towns and cities all across America. This is the sad tale of medical supply businesses being forced to close their doors because the new “cost saving” Medicare rules in Obamacare don’t adequately cover the cost of supplies needed by sick and aging Medicare patients. The owner says his profits will be cut by 85% citing one example of reimbursements for diabetic supplies that were cut by 72%.

Only a big government thinker could believe that it’s possible to make healthcare more affordable by creating a huge bureaucracy that attempts to control costs through regulation. The way to control cost is to eliminate the expensive, dictatorial, government middleman thereby creating competition among suppliers for the business. The buyer at the store is then free to negotiate with suppliers…he can say things like, “Gee I’d like to give you the business but Joe over at ABS will sell that item to me for $50 less per case…can’t you do better?” This is how costs are kept low.

The market, when not interfered with, will establish a fair price that is more affordable for everyone and the entrepreneurs that make these products will have incentive to find a way to make their product less expensive.

Warren Buffet (should be able to see) knew this before he endorsed Obamacare; hes a businessman! But better late than not at all.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Obamacare Update

  1. Tina says:

    Oh…how could I forget the third item in the Obamacare marathon of news:

    ‘Are you sexually active? If so, with one partner, multiple partners or same-sex partners?”

    Be ready to answer those questions and more the next time you go to the doctor, whether it’s the dermatologist or the cardiologist and no matter if the questions are unrelated to why you’re seeking medical help. And you can thank the Obama health law.

    “This is nasty business,” says New York cardiologist Dr. Adam Budzikowski. He called the sex questions “insensitive, stupid and very intrusive.” He couldn’t think of an occasion when a cardiologist would need such information — but he knows he’ll be pushed to ask for it.

    The president’s “reforms” aim to turn doctors into government agents, pressuring them financially to ask questions they consider inappropriate and unnecessary, and to violate their Hippocratic Oath to keep patients’ records confidential.

    According to the article, doctors and hospitals who don’t comply “face financial penalties from Medicare and Medicaid.” And the demand for personal information don’t stop with your sex life:

    The social-history questions also include whether you’ve ever used drugs,new law is in direct including IV drugs.

    Let’s see…I better make a list…NOT!

    Of course the new law stands in direct conflict with other laws…but that’s just notr a problem for the crew that has brought us the healthcare aw from hell!

  2. Chris says:

    *sigh*

    Tina,

    The Weekley Standard article you cite in order to claim that Warren Buffet is now against Obamacare relies on statements made by Warren Buffet in 2010, *before Obamacare had passed.* When Buffet referred to “what we have now,” he was referring to the pre-Obamacare status quo. He did acknowledge imperfections in Obamacare and said he wished that there was a “Plan C,” but said he would vote for Obamacare given the options on the table at the time.

    The Weekly Standard has since updated its article to acknowledge the date of the quotes, but still falsely claims that Buffet’s statements were anti-Obamacare. The update says:

    “It appears that Buffett made his anti-Obamacare comments in 2010, thereby showing that he, like most of the American people, has opposed Obamacare since even before it was passed…”

    This is ludicrous, as a quick Google search could have shown the Standard that Buffet is a longtime supporter of Obamacare. And had the site made any effort to look at the full context of Buffet’s statements–which the site originally reported as some kind of new development, even though they were made three years ago–they would have seen that they were part of an expression of support for Obamacare.

    Buffet has responded to the Standard’s false claims, stating:

    “Stories saying that Warren Buffett wants to “scrap Obamacare” are false, the Omaha investor said Tuesday.
    “This is outrageous,” Buffett said in a World-Herald interview Tuesday. “It’s 100 percent wrong … totally false.” …
    “I’ve never suggested nor thought Obamacare should be scrapped,” said Buffett, who has supported Obama’s political campaigns. “I support it. It relates to providing medical care for all Americans. That’s something I’ve thought should be done for a long, long time.”

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/09/today-in-conservative-obamacare-self-delusion.html

    Unfortunately, the lie has already spread throughout the conservative blogosphere.

    This is at least the second time this week you have posted an article in which quotes have been deceptively altered, and every time, it’s done to further your political point of view.

    Do you not see a problem with this?

  3. Chris says:

    Unsurprisingly, that NY Post article by Betsy “Death Panels” McCaughey is also total bullshit.

    McCaughey shows no evidence that the ACA requires doctors to ask patients questions about their sex lives. Why should she? She’s saying something bad about Obamacare, and she knows people like you will automatically believe it because you want to, despite the lack of evidence. She’s been lying about healthcare for over a decade, and it’s gotten her a nice fanbase and a lot of money.

    The sexual history questions she mentions are already routine procedure for most medical exams and physicals. You’d think conservatives have never been to the doctor before.

    http://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/SexualHistory.pdf

    Then she cites a cardiologist who “couldn’t think of an occasion when a cardiologist would need such information.” Seriously? That is one crappy cardiologist.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23900695

    McCaughey goes on to advise people to refuse to answer questions about sexual history from their doctors. That is idiotic and dangerous. How could anyone think that is good advice? How could anyone think a person who would say that is reliable? If your hatred of Obamacare so powerful that it has stunted your common sense in such a manner? Is it really worth telling people to withhold information from their doctors in order to fight this? Is it really worth fudging quotes, telling lies, and making a stupid ass of yourself on a daily basis?

    Again: If Obamacare is really so bad, you shouldn’t have to tell lies about it.

  4. Chris says:

    Tina,

    Please correct your false statements in both the article and your subsequent comment.

    In the article, you said:

    “The first is the startling news that billionaire investor Warren Buffet, who backed Obamacare before it was passed, is now saying we should “scrap it and start over””

    That was not true. Buffet’s comments were made over two years ago, and referred to the American health care system before Obamacare. In the same interview he said that he would vote in favor of the Affordable Care Act if he could.

    You then cited an article from serial liar Besty McCaughey, who blamelessly claimed that the ACA requires doctors to ask patients about their sex lives. She cited no evidence for this, yet you believed her anyway. This claim has since been rated “pants on fire” by Politifact. There is no such requirement in Obamacare. McCaughey made it up out of thin air.

    Failing to retract these false claims makes any and all future claims you make about the law suspect.

  5. Tina says:

    I have updated and corrected the post Chris. Thank you for asking nicely. I did not make the error purposely.

    You may not be happy with the method I used to correct the information…I am sorry if it upsets you. But joblessness, higher premiums, people losing their health insurance and doctors, businesses being run out of business, the cost that CBO now says will be much greater than was proposed, and more…it stinks…and it bothers me greatly!

    “You then cited an article from serial liar Besty McCaughey, who blamelessly claimed that the ACA requires doctors to ask patients about their sex lives. She cited no evidence for this, yet you believed her anyway.”

    I went to my clinic for a procedure this week and I was indeed asked to fill out a lengthy form wherein I was asked not only about my sex life but about a lot of other things that are not relevant to my care. It’s all going into the nanny state database and doctors are required to update the information every single visit.

    I refused to answer!

    NY Post:

    “This is nasty business,” says New York cardiologist Dr. Adam Budzikowski. He called the sex questions “insensitive, stupid and very intrusive.” He couldn’t think of an occasion when a cardiologist would need such information — but he knows he’ll be pushed to ask for it.

    The president’s “reforms” aim to turn doctors into government agents, pressuring them financially to ask questions they consider inappropriate and unnecessary, and to violate their Hippocratic Oath to keep patients’ records confidential.

    Embarrassing though it may be, you confide things to a doctor you wouldn’t tell anyone else. But this is entirely different.

    Doctors and hospitals who don’t comply with the federal government’s electronic-health-records requirements forgo incentive payments now; starting in 2015, they’ll face financial penalties from Medicare and Medicaid. The Department of Health and Human Services has already paid out over $12.7 billion for these incentives.

    Dr. Richard Amerling, a nephrologist and associate professor at Albert Einstein Medical College, explains that your medical record should be “a story created by you and your doctor solely for your treatment and benefit.” But the new requirements are turning it “into an interrogation, and the data will not be confidential.”

    Lack of confidentiality is what concerned the New York Civil Liberties Union in a 2012 report. Electronic medical records have enormous benefits, but with one click of a mouse, every piece of information in a patient’s record, including the social history, is transmitted, disclosing too much.

    You are entitled to your opinion about Dr Betsy McCaughey but be clear, it is just your opinion.

    This woman is no slouch. She is the former Lieutenant Governor of New York and constitutional scholar with a Ph.D. from Columbia University. She wrote a book on the subject. I would trust her to know what is in Obamacare long before I would take your word or the word of any of the radical leftists from whence your opinions seem to derive. I have seen the copy of the Law which she carries with her wherever she goes and it is obvious that she has read and reread it…something none of those who made it law ever did! It is also relevant to note that since the law was passed thousands of pages of regulation have also been passed. The Secretary has in fact been given wide powers to regulate at will.

    I suggest our readers check out this article from CATO, this article from CNS News, and this article from Forbes which offers good news and bad news.

    Finally, Polifact does not always get the facts right either, according to Heritage:

    Does calling a reporter a “fact checker” make him or her more even-handed? Hardly.

    PolitiFact is a case in point. It is a website of the Tampa Bay Times, manned by journalists and editors. It purports to rule from on high on the veracity of political statements, assigning “Truth-O-Meter” ratings that range from True to “Pants on Fire.” It is all very droll, or painfully sophomoric, depending on where you stand politically. Studies by George Mason University and the University of Minnesota have concluded that PolitiFact is a biased outfit that is much harsher on conservatives than on liberals.

    Last week, PolitiFact decided to rate statements on defunding Obamacare made by Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint at town hall meetings across the country. Well, these are not ratings made last week—PolitiFact just wrote on how it had rated these statements in the past. A bit of a summer rerun.

    I checked with one of our top health care experts, Chris Jacobs, and this is what he told me on PolitiFact’s “ratings”: “The claims about ‘debunked’ statements being made on the Defund Obamacare Town Hall tour ignore the actual facts behind those statements.” Chris makes the following points:

    PolitiFact’s objections to the characterization of Obamacare as government-centered medicine ignore conclusions from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that a mandate for all Americans to purchase health insurance, like that in Obamacare, is “an unprecedented form of federal action,” or analysis from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service that “the precise number of new entities that will ultimately be created” by Obamacare is “currently unknowable.”

    PolitiFact’s objections to the characterization of Obamacare putting bureaucrats before doctors and patients ignore Obamacare’s expansion of pay-for-performance programs—which will reduce Medicare payments to doctors who do not follow guidelines defined by federal bureaucrats—as well as the board of 15 unelected officials created by Obamacare who will make rulings reducing Medicare spending.

    PolitiFact’s objections to talk that Obamacare relies on reduced Medicare spending to fund its coverage expansions ignore comments from Nancy Pelosi—that firebrand conservative—who admitted that Democrats “took half a trillion dollars out of Medicare in [Obamacare], the health care bill, already.”

    Chris tells me, furthermore, that the piece de resistance of the fact-checkers’ ready, fire, aim mentality comes from the statement—made in April 2013, and reiterated last week—calling claims that Medicaid does not improve patients’ outcomes “half true.”

    “There’s only one problem with that assertion,” says Chris, “and it comes from The New York Times’ May 2013 coverage of an experiment in Oregon that compared health outcomes of Medicaid patients to the uninsured.”

    Here’s what the Times wrote:

    [The study] found that those who gained Medicaid coverage spent more on health care, making more visits to doctors and trips to the hospital. But the study suggests that Medicaid coverage did not make those adults much healthier, at least within the two-year time frame of the research, judging by their blood pressure, blood sugar and other measures. [emphasis added]

    To sum up: A PolitiFact reporter made “conclusions” about the health of Medicaid patients compared to the uninsured in April 2013, then presented these assumptions as the truth from Mount Olympus. A few weeks after that, a much-watched study led The New York Times (among other press outlets) to report that Medicaid did not improve the health of the uninsured. Yet before issuing her ruling on the accuracy of statements made on the Heritage Action Town Hall tour last week, the Politifact reporter neither re-examined nor updated her conclusions to reflect the latest research.

    I have gone to this trouble to point out once again that your opinions are welcome here. You are free to offer information that conflicts with what we have written. When you are correct we actually appreciate it…but your sources can be as biased or flat out wrong as any other so comments like “serial liar” are not really appreciated and will be met with similar rebuttals.

  6. Tina says:

    Those interested in media lies and bias should also read this Investors article with examples of main stream media deliberately misinforming the public about votes caste by Republicans in the House of Representatives.

  7. Chris says:

    Tina, thanks for correcting this post.

    “I went to my clinic for a procedure this week and I was indeed asked to fill out a lengthy form wherein I was asked not only about my sex life but about a lot of other things that are not relevant to my care.”

    Right, but I can’t believe this was the first time you’ve encountered such questions. I had to fill out a similar form years ago, before Obama was even elected, where I was asked about my sexual history. You may think that’s not relevant to your visit, and you have every right not to answer, but doctors ask these questions for a reason.

    Again, there is nothing in the law that mandates doctors ask any additional questions about sexual history, which is why McCaughey doesn’t show any evidence for that assertion. She can’t point to the specific passage of the law which mandates this, because it doesn’t exist. Why would you believe this claim when there is no evidence for it?

    McCaughey knows she doesn’t need to provide evidence for her claims because she has been lying about healthcare reform for nearly two decades, and mostly getting away with it. Yes, she’s called out by fact checkers and other reporters, but that hasn’t stopped certain outlets like the NY Post from publishing her unsupported work.

    “I would trust her to know what is in Obamacare long before I would take your word or the word of any of the radical leftists from whence your opinions seem to derive.”

    The great thing about the Information Age is that you don’t have to take anyone’s word for anything. You can read the law yourself if you’re so inclined. There is simply nothing in there to back up McCaughey’s allegations that it requires doctors to ask you about your sex life.

    Politifact doesn’t always get things right, but it is hardly a group of “radical leftists.” They have given “pants on fire” ratings to both Republicans and Democrats and have also received criticism from both sides, which tells me they’re doing something right. Furthermore, on this specific point, they have provided evidence and Betsy McCaughey has not. If you want to believe McCaughey then find me the section of the law that requires what McCaughey claims.

    Remember, McCaughey’s main contribution to the healthcare debate has been scaring seniors into believing that voluntary end-of-life counseling–something previously supported by both Republicans and Democrats–was actually a covert government attempt to euthanize them:

    “Congress would make it mandatory, absolutely require, that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25486.html

    There’s no reason to be generous here: That was a lie. And that’s not just my opinion. Betsy McCaughey said something that was factually untrue, and that she knew was factually untrue at the time. After she was corrected by numerous fact checkers and experts, McCaughey said she stood by her false claim. That’s called lying.

    Yet many conservative news sites, as well as influential talk radio hosts like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, promoted the lie, even though they could have easily read the law and found out that it bore no resemblance to what McCaughey claimed.

    And she’s been doing this for years.

    “Those of you who are unfamiliar with McCaughey probably aren’t unfamiliar with her many, many lies. In 1994, she published the influential article “No Exit,” which claimed that Clinton’s health-care plan would not allow you to purchase health-care services with your own money. This was debunked in one of the first provisions of the bill, which read, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the following: (1) An individual from purchasing any health care services.” This year, she’s famous for providing the base deceptions that led to the “death panel” nonsense, and for seeding talk radio with the idea that the stimulus bill would put your doctor under the control of the newly-created Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. That office turned out to be a George W. Bush creation.”

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/what_betsy_mccaughey_knows.html

    Tina, the whole reason you had to correct this article in the first place is because you relied on an untrustworthy, dishonest source. The Weekly Standard is still insisting that Buffet opposes the law even though he came out against their false claims last week. Continuing to rely on the same sources will only further discredit your movement and make your claims about Obamacare ring hollow to informed voters.

  8. Tina says:

    Chris you had to fill out a form “years ago”? I’m sorry but you have to understand how funny that sounds to me.

    You say it was before Obama…so five, six years ago? That’s hardly an example of how things have been in America.

    I have never been asked such questions and I’ve lived in a number of different places and seen various doctors over a sixty + year period.

    Since doctors are actually complaining about the implementation of the new healthcare law I don’t think you can say with authority, especially at your age, that they haven’t been newly mandated to ask these questions. The law is now rounded out with pages and pages of regulations that were not part of the original legislation…policies and regulations giving the HHS and the IRS wider powers. It has also never before been reality that one’s private health records become part of a huge database.

    The policy to encourage (a nice word for “force or lose funding”) the use of an electronic database is explained right on the White House blog. It is called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

    Providers are definitely being influenced and conditioned to ask these questions by HHS for various reasons:

    Fenway Health:

    Fenway Health, a federally qualified health center in Boston, Massachusetts has been testing two versions of a sexual orientation identity question as well as a transgender identity question in 2011. The U.S. Department of Health and
    Human Services (HHS) will field test a sexual identity question on the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) in early 2012. It is hoped that it will be added as a standard question to NHIS in fall 2012. HHS is also conducting research on how to measure gender identity and has committed to adding gender identity to a battery of demographic questions alongside sexual orientation, age, sex, and
    race/ethnicity, etc.

    Big brother is a woman named Kathleen Sebelius and Obama is the man that has delivered to America the most intrusive and controlling piece of legislation to ever come down the pike.

    Chris I feel sorry for you. You seem to have absolutely surrendered your autonomy to the collective and you seem clueless as to the future dangers associated with giving up your god granted liberties. You also have yet to learn of the covert methods that Marxist radicals use to persuade unaware dupes into handing over their liberties with a happy face smile plastered across their faces. They’ve been at this for seventy years which should give you some idea of the conniving patient practices and methods they have. They have learned not to make something a direct order…just to make it damned uncomfortable, if not impossible, to not comply. It’s an ugly business. Attempts to expose it are meant with arguments such as yours.

    On a somewhat related side note, has anyone seen the movie “The Way Back” about an amazing escape from the Russian Gulag? The survivors of the escaped group manage to walk all the way to Tibet to be free …good movie.

    Otherwise be sure to see Bill Clinton’s salvo: America as a commune in my newest post.

  9. Chris says:

    Tina: “Chris you had to fill out a form “years ago”? I’m sorry but you have to understand how funny that sounds to me.”

    Sorry, but I don’t.

    “You say it was before Obama…so five, six years ago? That’s hardly an example of how things have been in America.”

    I’m not following. The article you cited in your comment claimed that these questions are mandated by Obamacare. Pointing out that questions like this have been standard procedure since before Obama’s inauguration would seem to prove that false, no?

    “I have never been asked such questions and I’ve lived in a number of different places and seen various doctors over a sixty + year period.”

    Well, that’s just weird. The CDC recommends that doctors ask about sexual history “during a patient’s
    initial visit, during routine preventive exams,
    and when you see signs of sexually transmitted
    diseases (STDs).”

    http://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/SexualHistory.pdf

    You’ve never been asked such questions? Even when you were pregnant? Have you never been to a gynecologist?

    I’m honestly concerned about your health now.

    “Since doctors are actually complaining about the implementation of the new healthcare law I don’t think you can say with authority, especially at your age, that they haven’t been newly mandated to ask these questions.”

    I’m sorry, but McCaughey cited only one doctor, a cardiologist, who said he “couldn’t think of one reason that a cardiologist would need such information.” All this proves is that anyone can find a single doctor to say something extraordinarily stupid if it guarantees them a moment of media attention. There are many reasons a cardiologist would need to ask about sexual health:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23900695

    “It has also never before been reality that one’s private health records become part of a huge database.”

    Yes, it has, and that database was created in 2004 under George W. Bush. In 2009 McCaughey falsely claimed that this database was created by Obama’s stimulus bill, and now she’s changing her story, falsely claiming that it’s created by Obamacare. As liars do.

    “The policy to encourage (a nice word for “force or lose funding”) the use of an electronic database is explained right on the White House blog. It is called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

    Again, the database itself was created under Bush, and it allows easier access to medical records and reduces costs. I have no idea why you’d be against that.

  10. Tina says:

    Keep your head fully engaged in leftist media and you will never hear or read complaints about anything the left does. I don’t doubt you have never heard of doctors who resent the intrusion into their practice that this bill represents.

    I have spoken to several myself… I know of a few who are retiring early because of it, and I have seen many interviewed on television expressing their concerns and dislikes. But online sources also are available for anyone interested.

    Dr Mark “Siegel wrote in Forbes prior to the Supreme Court decisions citing a poll:

    A recent poll by sermo.com, a physican’s website, revealed that 75 percent of doctors are against the health care law, and a survey by Deloitte, a major health consulting firm, found that 69 percent of physicians are “pessimistic about the future of medicine” because of the law.

    Why? Because we physicians understand what many lawyers and judges don’t, that insurance – no matter what kind – presents a bureaucratic barrier between doctor and patient, between my desire to help you and actually being able to do so. The so-called Affordable Care Act increases the problem by extending it to more people rather than providing solutions. If Obamacare stands, its review boards and committees will make recommendations that are sure to stifle my creativity and interfere with my one-on-one doctoring even as they decide that one medical service is better than another and that I am being paid too much for procedures it has taken me decades to master.

    I am concerned that the machinations of Obamacare will squelch a young person’s desire to become a doctor in the first place. At a time when we need more doctors, not less, the number of medical school applicants is down 3,000 applicants a year since 1996. Today’s graduating medical students are looking down the road into Obamacare’s overregulated poor paying future and are choosing to not become low paying primary care doctors like me. Studies have shown that the ranks of primary care internists have already decreased by a third from 1985 to 2008. That number is sure to double by 2014 unless the law is dismantled.

    This is one doctors response.

    Here’s an article that list five reasons doctors hate Obamacare.

    This article is about doctors and hospitals that are revolting against aspects of the law.

    Baby Boomers are reaching retirement age at precisely the wrong time as Obamacare causes more doctors to stop accepting Medicare patients. Unhappily as Obamacare increases the numbers of those on Medicaid doctors are opting out of that system also.

    See video here of an emergency room physician explaining why he doesn’t like Obamacare.

    Doctors serving in the Senate have expressed their concerns and prediction about the negative impact Obamacare will have.

    In 2009 Doctors and nurses from around the country rallied in Washington DC and spoke to their Congressman to argue “for a platform that avoids unnecessary bureaucratic intervention in health care.”

    Physician Owned Hospitals are fighting Obamacare in the press and in the courts:

    Physician hospital organizations are firing back at President Obama’s health care law in the press and the courts, seeking a repeal of what they argue are “exclusionary and unconstitutional” restrictions.

    Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding. It has already halted the development of 24 new physician-owned hospitals and forced an additional 47 to struggle to meet the deadline to complete construction, according to the Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).

    PHA and the Texas Spine and Joint Hospital (TSJH) filed suit against U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in June. Pretrial arguments have been completed, and the trial began in December in Tyler, Texas.

    The original purpose for digital medical records was easy filing of accurate information that you and your physician could access. Obamacare has taken this basic idea and created mandatory reporting of private information that we now know for sure can be easily hacked and the information, including social security number abused.

    Even good ideas can have terrible consequences. Besides, nobody has ever accused George Bush of being terribly conservative or libertarian and he has been a part of the bigger government model. His saving grace was that he understood we need business friendly policies and he knew that the less fortunate are harmed more by high taxation and stupid regulations. His Rx drug law expanded government but also reformed Medicare, introducing free market principles that have brought costs down.

    Our readers should decide for themselves who the biggest liars are regarding Obamacare. As Jacks recent article points out a number of them are the original writers and promoters of Obamacare, including President, “it will bend the cost curve down” Barack Obama.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.