Insurance: the last defense against socialism

When I was in grad school, I realized that the lure of socialism will always win out where people are relatively simple.

Socialism works like a drug pusher, it hooks junkies with a lovely feeling; then, the junky becomes the slave of the pusher. The US republic always depended upon individualistic responsibility and freedom from intrusion by the central government, so the National Socialist (NAZI), fascist, Progressive movements of the early Twentieth Century fell short, mostly, from my view, because the ills they identified were addressed by that evil, capitalist marketplace of ideas and the awareness of business people that if they wanted to stay out of a gulag, things had better change.

I recalled the Grachii brothers of Rome who, though rich, build a power base by pandering to the wants of the average person. This is an old fraud.

So I concluded that statism would always surface as the winner because it would pander to the fears of the voter and force collectivism to assure security to the fearful. Today, the fears are whipped up daily in the U.S. by the collectivists.

Two things had saved the U.S. from the early triumphs of socialism before and after WWI.

First, we were a republic and everyone understood they had a hand in the government, one that worked for them. They took care of their community and the state regulated life; the federal government was annoying squeak that was useful when a war broke out or some national matter had to be addressed. Now, the federal government is a remote power that tells us what to do and how. So much for a republic. The second was the use of insurance.

Insurance was the free market way for people to aggregate for protection against individual loss. This was a good system as any government system would be unconstitutional, confused, expensive, and unreasonable.

Over time, the insurance business was subjected to the collective under the lie of consumer protection. Competition is now forbidden across state lines (what Constitution provision is this?). Power centers took control and populate the insurance departments. (See Atlas Shrugged). There is little competition in the business, a terrible thing, but, still, much better than a state controlled system. This is becoming clear as cost goes up, choice disappears, and we are told older people really can't be helped.

Anyone who understands the basic of history, formerly a serious subject in our schools, intuitively understands our nation was built upon the inviolability of the contract, availability of credit, and protection via insurance, which concept was created our of Lloyds to protect sailing ships on long voyages. Indeed, even stock and commodity futures are a form of insurance. The system was brilliant.

Now that the republic has become a FOX News fantasy, attention is directed to destroying the alternative to socialism.

Obamacare has nothing to do with health, it is, in the end, a plan to eliminate insurance companies. Democrats see nothing wrong with not reading the "Affordable Health Care Act," what BS, bill before voting on it; they were assured of its ultimate goal, not that is would work, which is immaterial.  Poor sap Republicans actually try to argue that the core of the plan is flawed. What a waste of effort. Of course, it is, so what? Duh. It is not supposed to continue one the people see the need for Big Brother's total control.

The final act of the Obamacare con has been described by another Emanuel, Ezeckiel:

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the architects behind Obamacare, is now claiming that “insurance companies as we know them are about to die.” Critics of President Barack Obama’s signature health care law have long alleged that one of the real goals of the law was to put private insurance companies out of business.

“The good news is you won’t have insurance companies to kick around much longer. The system is changing,” Emanuel writes in an op-ed on New Republic. “As a result, insurance companies as they are now will be going away. Indeed, they are already evolving. For the next few years insurance companies will both continue to provide services to employers and, increasingly, compete against each other in the health insurance exchanges.”

Due to Obamacare, “new actors will force insurance companies to evolve or become extinct,” he continues. Instead, new groups called “accountable care organizations” (ACOs) must start competing directly in the health care exchanges for exclusive contracts with employers.

In this March 11, 2009 photo, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, special advisor for health care at the Office of Management and Budget, speaks at the American Medical Association’s annual conference at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, Ezekiel J. Emanuel values intelligence, but don’t accuse him of Harvard-itis. He’ll tell you an Ivy League degree doesn’t prove anyone’s worth. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The ACOs will have “standardized, guideline-driven care plans for most major conditions and procedures to increase efficiency,” says Emanuel, the brother of Obama’s former chief of staff and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

“They will have figured out how to harness their electronic medical records to better identify patients who will become sick and how to intervene early as well as how to care for the well-identified chronically ill so as to reduce costs,” he notes.

More from the New Republic op-ed:

The key skill these ACOs and hospital systems lack—the skill insurance companies specialize in—is the actuarial capacity to predict and manage financial risk. But over the next decade this is something they will develop—or purchase. After all, actuarial science is not rocket science, even if it involves a lot of mathematical equations. And with that skill, ACOs and hospital systems will become integrated delivery systems like Kaiser or Group Health of Puget Sound. Then they will cut out the insurance company middle man—and keep the insurance company profits for themselves. Therefore, increasingly these ACOs and hospital systems will transform themselves into integrated delivery systems, entering insurance exchanges and negotiating with employers, in direct competition with insurance companies.
As the ACOs become more established, Emanuel claims contracts between the health systems and employers will become more common, thus “cutting out the insurance companies.”

Once the health systems “make the jump to offering coverage in the exchanges, the health insurance companies will only have a few options if they want to survive, according to Emanuel.

“First, they can refuse to change, in which case they will eventually go out of business,” he writes. “Second, they can shift their business to focus on offering services they have expertise in, particularly analytics, actuarial modeling, risk management, and other management services.”

Finally, the “third evolutionary path is that health insurance companies may transform themselves into integrated delivery systems.”

“So be prepared to kiss your insurance company good-by. (sic)

So much for the lies told about Obamacare, by Obama.  

So, the law interferes with private contracts, unconstitutional, is designed to control an entire industry, unconstitutional, creates a protected class of competitors, unconstitutional, and establishes the central government as ruler of healthcare, declared unconstitutional in the recent case (no basis for government industry, but a tax was constitutional. This is dopey, but it was the decision.)

The law remains in tact, which is easy since the president amends it by edict when it can't work, and your choices begin with an option to consider a new country, stop earning money, not own a business with employees, hide your assets, get food stamps; you know, become socialists whose goals are to play the system and, then, stop producers from leaving the country with their assets. 

An alternative choice that may help is to vote in the coming primary against ALL incumbents. If a few good ones are lost, too bad; as we know, it takes a luke warm intellect to be a politician. Most of us do not know what lurks in the minds of the ruling class, so just say no. What does matter is honesty and a respect for the rule of law - our old law. This makes voting simple, vote NONE OF THE ABOVE

PS:  actuarial science is far more difficult than being a "rocket scientists," whatever that is, but how would a socialist know that. The government could just have the IRS compute actuarial projections, with the proper modifications for the select rules of the Animal Farm.

The End Is Neigh, Unless Individuals Act

The recent attempt by fiscal conservatives to force the Senate and Obama to end Obamacare is, generally, discussed in three ways. 

The stupid way is that goofy Republicans are the Gang That Can't Shoot Straight and were engaging in a pointless political attack. (If one were saying it was a political attach by conservative Republicans against establishment hack, that would be true.) The stupid people gloat about "winning" some perceived game.

My discussions focus on Cruz' concern that the socialization of the medical system, via insurance now, brings an end to the liberty that we have all known. We don't need an efficient medical system (which would never happen) so that we can keep paying tribute to the lords. Freedom, and that means, say, freedom to offer medical insurance across state boundaries, will always find the best solution to meeting a need. 

The third avenue of discussion is that Obamacare and our spending, in general, has put us over the edge, that fiscal cliff, and one by one our fingers are going numb. HERE is a short article, more of a blog, that simply outlines the coming end to our economic system.  It begins: 

The Tea Party Is Not "Wrong" 

 There comes a time when one doesn't care why someone has a correct position, even if the foundation from which they proceed is faulty, only that they have the correct position. 

The Tea Party, led by Ted Cruz, focused on Obamacare, as did a handful of House Republicans. 

Despite the criticism leveled against them they were exactly correct to do so, even if they came at it and arrived at their conclusions due to an incorrect starting premise or analysis. 

Here's why...

Inside the article is a YouTube link and you can hear Jamie Diamond say in an interview that the collapse is two to five years away.  Now, we have to wonder when that was filmed. He indicates WE can stop it.

Please, don't tell me you don't know who Jamie Diamond is. If you don't know, PLEASE do not vote.

No, folks, the Tea Party is not wrong.  Senator Cruz is not wrong. 

You're wrong.  You're wrong because you believe there is such a thing as a free lunch and that you can have it -- or at least, that you can force someone other than you to pay for it. 

That's not only not how it's going to work out it's not how it has worked out thus far.

Wake up folks -- while there's still time.

The "take away" from the article should include an awareness that there in NO competition in the medical profession. Insurance companies are PROTECTED by government from competition. The problem is not found in a free market approach, an argument favored by the stupid, but in the state protection of large companies. This is oligarchy, a system of control that loves use socialism as that system can force people into economic bondage. 

Note in the graph, above, that nearly 70% of our GDP is government spending. Understand what that means. In the end, it is not much of a guide, however. 

Definition of 'Gross Domestic Product - GDP'
The monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period, though GDP is usually calculated on an annual basis. It includes all of private and public consumption, government outlays, investments and exports less imports that occur within a defined territory.
GDP = C + G + I + NX
where:
"C" is equal to all private consumption, or consumer spending, in a nation's economy"G" is the sum of government spending"I" is the sum of all the country's businesses spending on capital"NX" is the nation's total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports. (NX = Exports - Imports)

Got it?  There are reports that 70% of the GDP is consumer spending, yet 70% is also government.  It is best to just get out of debt, get our of dollars, and buy peanut butter.

Socialism update: medical insurance

I decided to drop in an extensive update on the medical insurance snafu underway.  The chaos is now settling out into a measurable mess, but true believers are not interested in such things.  I suggest putting this aside, as it is an extensive report.  This is worthwhile reading.

For my part, if you notice the bit about personal data being sent to government departments, this is critical in the long term notion of freedom.  I have refused to go online with my doctor's office. Doctors were given grants to computerize their offices and use a system where a bridge connects the medical community so a doctor in L.A. could check your records in NY.  Sounds good, right?

What is important to know is that this bridge is maintained by an NSA front corporation - all data runs through Big Brother. The act preserving medical privacy, by the way, does not apply to the government. They can take whatever data the like.  Whatever personal data that exists there or in Facebook etc will be available to use against you.  As lawyers say, it "chills" free speech. It freezes liberty.

If one thinks "so what" I have nothing to hide, they have missed the whole point. They are lost.  (PS: I do use they instead of he or she, or he. Just a current method to be PC. We need a new pronoun.  Perhaps, "hesh.")


From AAPS:

... State Exchanges The deadline for notifying the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the state’s intention to set up a state-managed exchange has been extended from Nov 16 to Dec 14. A number of states have refused, and others are delaying a decision until HHS spells out essential benefits and other rules. As of late September, only 19 states had begun setting up exchanges or had agreed to do so (Kaiser Health News 11/9/12). Gov. John Kasich of Ohio wrote that “due to costs and lack of control that states have under the law, operating a state-based exchange clashes with the...values that we would like to pursue.” Gov. Rick Perry of Texas wrote that “it would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written.” Louisiana gave notice on Mar 23, 2011, that it would not assume the risk of building an exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and on Nov 16, 2012, sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius detailing still-unresolved questions about its legality (http://tinyurl.com/bmttslh). “The full extent of damage the PPACA causes to small businesses, the nation’s economy, and the American health care system will only be revealed with time. The State of Louisiana has no interest in being a party to this failure by implementing a state based exchange.” Although originally proposed by conservatives as a mechanism to give workers a wide range of choices in a defined-contribution program, the exchange idea is perverted in ObamaCare. It is turned into a means of distributing subsidies, and shoehorning customers into a narrow range of government-approved choices, writes Avik Roy (Forbes 11/19/12). Exchanges will force millions of Americans into coverage more expensive than that which they currently own, he states. And “there’s almost no point in states setting up their own exchanges because states have no flexibility to improve on Obamacare’s creaky design”. “Running the exchanges would be an administrative nightmare for states,” write James Capretta and Yuval Levin, “requiring a complicated set of rules, mandates, databases and interfaces to establish eligibility, funnel subsidies, and facilitate purchases.” By refusing to create exchanges, states can effectively repeal much of the law, sparing citizens from the job-killing employer mandate, assaults on religious liberty, and in some cases the individual mandate (WSJ11/19/12). “The Exchange will create an unprecedented tracking system,” writes Twila Brase of the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom. All state exchanges will funnel private data into the Federal Data Services Hub to at least five federal agencies and myriad state databases. Health Insurance Rules On Nov 20, HHS released long-awaited proposed rules, including 131 pages related to the health insurance market and rate reviews (http://tinyurl.com/bs59f7z). “The floodgates are open for untold amounts of regulation in the next few months,” writes Steven Bassett. “The Burden Sharing Ministries may become a refuge for many.” While an accurate assignment of risk based on age would give at least a six-fold premium difference, only a 3:1 ratio is allowed. There is a single age band from 0–20 years, and one for age 64 and older. From 21–63, premiums vary every year. ObamaCare is a steep levy on young people, even though 55% of uninsured Americans are under age 35, principally because health insurance is already too expensive. Avik Roy’s translation of HHS statements is: “We will drive up the cost of health insurance for most people, and spend lots more tax money in order to hide that fact from voters” (Forbes 11/21/12). Subsidies vary with income, and changes are to be monitored by the IRS with unknown frequency. People could find themselves having to pay back a subsidy, writes John C. Parker. A $6,000 increase in income could mean the loss of $10,000 in health insurance subsidies. Divorce may be the only option for obtaining affordable insurance for children and the lower-income spouse (WSJ 10/31/12). Doomed to Failure Even the election may not have saved ObamaCare. When people learn of its impact, Obama’s popularity might not last long post inauguration, despite a massive public “awareness” campaign (http://tinyurl.com/b62zkoc). There are such serious flaws that Democrats will have to perform major surgery even if Republicans do nothing, writes John Goodman. Implementation as written is impossible, some say. The Administration may try to delay it to avoid massive embarrassing failure. If it follows the script of Soviet Five-Year Plans, watch for witch-hunts for wreckers and saboteurs. ObamaCare Costs and Benefits Medicare. The cuts in Medicare spending (“savings”) have risen from $500 billion to $716 billion, but Obama told AARP “I have strengthened Medicare as President.” The amount cut would be $768 billion if it were not offset by $48 billion in increased spending for prescription drugs (helping the 6% of seniors who touched the Medicare “donut hole”) and $4 billion on “wellness.” The ratio of cuts to new benefits is 15:1 (Forbes 10/2/12). Health Insurance Rebates. Owing to the $1 billion in rebates insurers have had to pay because of the Act, Obama claims that repeal would aid insurers. Since insurers are expected to gain $1 trillion in revenues, their cost:benefit ratio is 1:1,000 (Reason.com 10/8/12). Regulatory Burden: According to the American Action Forum, 85 new rulemakings due to ObamaCare have imposed $20.4 billion in costs on private entities and $7.2 billion on state budgets. According to the Federal Register, the paperwork will take about 60 million hours. For a benefit of $0, the cost: benefit ratio is infinite (http://tinyurl.com/9oosxfh). More Employed MDs, Less Work In the first three years after hiring a physician, a hospital loses $150,000 to $250,000 per year. After that, losses decrease by 50%, but persist. So why are hospitals hiring so aggressively? Apparently, it is in the interest of gaining control over the market for long-term advantage. Robert Kocher and Nikhil Sahni note that employed physicians will be subjected to more performance management than previously and that it will be more difficult to revert to private practice. “Employment choices that physicians make today may not be able to be undone” (NEJM 5/12/11). Hospitals now employ about 20% of practicing physicians directly, and many more in group practices owned by health systems. Employed physicians worked an average 53.1 hours per week, compared with 54.1 for physicians in private practice, and saw 17% fewer patients. “We know that an employed physician is less productive than a practice owner,” said Mark Smith of Merritt Hawkins (AM News 10/8/12). The effect of these changes could be the equivalent of losing 44,000 physicians over the next 4 years (Forbes 10/8/12). ObamaCare Cover-up? In January, the federal government finalized a contract with Quality Software Services, Inc. (QSSI) to run the federal data services hub (“Hub”) that will run state-based exchanges. In September, UnitedHealth Group (UHG), which owns UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest insurer, purchased QSSI. UHG did not file an 8-K form disclosing the acquisition to the SEC. The information technology will transmit massive flows of socioeconomic and health information that an insurer could exploit as valuable business intelligence. One critic compared UHG’s purchase to the New York Yankee’s hiring the American League umpires (The Hill 11/3/12). On Oct 19, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) sent a letter to HHS demanding to see the contracts, the financials, and lots of other data by Oct 26. Secretary Sebelius did not meet the deadline. Right to Disenroll Is Now AMA Policy Thanks to the efforts of AAPS members and others in the CMA Solo Small Group Practice Forum in the California delegation to the recent House of Delegates meeting, AMA now officially supports the right to disenroll from Medicare: “RESOLVED: That our American Medical Association support every physician’s ability to choose not to enroll in Medicare (New HOD Policy), and be it further “RESOLVED: That our AMA seek the right of patients to collect from Medicare for covered services provided by unenrolled or disenrolled physicians (Directive to Take Action).” A “Whereas” clause stated that CMS overstepped its regulatory authority by claiming, in an anonymous email published by the AMA, that a physician must either enroll in Medicare or provide a Medicare-covered service for free. Supporting documentation from the Forum stated that physicians could disenroll by completing CMS Form 855i, sections 1A, 13, and 15. Section 1A has a box to check that reads: “you are voluntarily terminating your Medicare enrollment.” The disenrolled doctor “doesn’t have anything to do with Medicare.” Patients may seek reimbursement from Medicare by filing Form 1490S, or from a secondary insurer. “A number of our colleagues run their practices just like that right now.” Physicians whose patients file Form 1490S should be prepared to receive letters from the carrier threatening a $2,000 fine for not obeying the mandatory claims-submission requirement. We know of a physician who has received a dozen identical threat letters, but of no serious efforts to collect. The Forum writes: “Earlier this year, a Freedom of Information Act request was sent to Medicare, asking for the names of nonenrolled physicians who have been fined or sanctioned. Medicare has not produced a single name of any such physician.” See:http://tinyurl.com/bqylpy8. Flashback: Politics of Medicine in the UK “Physicians agreed to collaborate in running the NHS on condition that...the clinical freedom of all doctors would be preserved…. In theory, [clinical freedom] has been preserved, but in practice, such freedom may be illusory, since the treatment of patients is often subject to the constraints of a third party…. Indeed, Hampton believes that clinical freedom is dead and that no one need regret its passing…. Medical care should be limited to what is of proved value and the medical profession should set opinion aside” (Lister J, N Engl J Med 1986 ; 315: 168-174). The Labour Party has always been opposed to private practice, Lister noted, and tried to do away with it. AAPS Calendar Feb 1-2. AAPS v TMB hearing; regional meeting, Austin, TX. Sept 25-28, 2013. 70th annual meeting, Denver, CO. ACTION OF THE MONTH Help stop ObamaCare in your state! Click here to read AAPS action alert: Tell Your Governor to Say NO. Surgeon in Prison; Picked Wrong CPT Code Dr. John Natale, 63, a vascular surgeon from Arlington, Ill., has started serving a 10-month term in federal prison after conviction on two counts of “making false statements” in connection with surgeries performed between August 2002 and October 2004. He had saved the lives of five patients who had an expected 90% mortality, using an aneurysm repair procedure for which no precise CPT code exists. The government had also discovered, in some 2,400 operative reports, two inaccurate statements. At sentencing, Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer stated: “It’s hard for me to imagine that there was some motivation other than to pad the bill in Dr. Natale’s operative notes.” Natale’s attempt to explain how he had made the errors was considered to be “obstruction of justice.” Cross-examination at trial revealed that a transcribed dictation was missing the preposition “to.” The prosecutor urged the judge to impose prison time because of the need to deter Medicare fraud, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime and respect for the law. “My sense is, still today, that the doctor doesn’t really believe that he actually committed an offense.” The Judge referred to “just a razor-thin margin on the Supreme Court upholding the recent Affordable Healthcare Act [sic].” Because the federal budget is so compromised, accurate coding is of extraordinary importance. At trial, the prosecutor asked: “Now, when you enrolled in Medicare, you agreed to submit truthful and accurate claims…, didn’t you, sir?” But the doctor had used the term “bypass” for something that was a bypass only functionally, not technically, and he had billed for a repair involving the femoral artery, when it actually was the common iliac—for which he would have been paid more. Therefore, the government wants him never to practice medicine again, although he never lost a patient in surgery. Doctor Acquitted on Drug Distribution Charges After prosecutors destroyed his life for 5 years, a jury acquitted John Costino, Jr., D.O., of Wildwood, N.J., in 2 hours. The charges involved seven visits of two phony patients, undercover agents claiming to be exotic dancers. Dr. Costino prescribed Percocet for what he believed to be genuine pain related to their work. Defense attorney John Tumelty said he believed the doctor was targeted because he is one of the few doctors in the area who prescribes Suboxone (Press of Atlantic City 11/8/12). AAPS Files Amicus on Contraception Mandate AAPS has joined with the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians & Gynecologists and several other medical organizations in filing a brief amicus curiae in the case of State of Nebraska v. HHS before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case challenges regulations implementing the ACA mandate for all insurance plans to cover “all preventive care and screenings for women.” The regulation interprets this to mean all items the FDA considers to be contraceptives, including drugs and devices with known life-ending mechanisms of action, such as ella. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requires insurers to offer plans that do not include contraception to those who are eligible for this “accommodation.” Yet, simultaneously, “the issuer must additionally provide to the participants and beneficiaries covered under the plan separate health insurance coverage consisting solely of coverage for contraceptive services...without charge to the organization, group health plan, or plan participants or beneficiaries.” In other words, the “accommodation” still requires that employers facilitate objectionable insurance coverage or be subject to a penalty. The objecting employer must arrange for health insurance and, according to the ANPRM, the plan participants and beneficiaries will be automatically enrolled (“without an application or enrollment process”) in contraceptive coverage without cost sharing. The ANPRM is purportedly accomplishing an economic impossibility: providing the mandated drug or devices without cost to employer or employee. Someone has to pay. The idea that the cost will not be passed along in premium increases is clearly suspect. Amici argue that the ANPRM is merely an attempt by HHS to obscure the nature of the mandate—an unprecedented violation of religious liberty (http://tinyurl.com/clhycak). AAPS Supports Pharmacists’ Freedom With the aid of the Bioethics Defense Fund, AAPS and other medical groups filed a brief amicus curiae in the Ninth Circuit in support of pharmacists in Stormans v Selecky. The case concerns the right of pharmacists to decline to stock or dispense drugs that have the capacity to terminate human life as one possible mechanism of action. Amici argue: Despite the plurality of views in our society about the moral status of the human being at the embryonic and fetal stages of development, the resolution of this case in favor of the Appellee Pharmacists’ rights of conscience does not require this Court to decide the moral worth or legal rights of the human embryo prior to uterine implantation. This Court need only recognize that a pharmacist, like any healthcare provider, is a professional entitled to make a judgment to refrain from actions that violates his or her conscience as informed by both science and religion (http://tinyurl.com/c74at7o). Delinquent Overpayments Targeted If CMS overpayments are not returned within 120 days, the Treasury Dept. will take collection action, including liens on the provider’s bank accounts and assets, such as his practice and his home. His NPI will be flagged and barred from receiving further CMS payments. A practice that hires a provider who is delinquent in returning overpayments could find itself liable in a False Claims Act case. If you don’t have new hires sign a document in which they state they are not aware of any compliance issues, you are complicit in their fraudulent billing (MPCA10/29/12). Watch for Traps in Contracts Physicians report that insurers, e.g. UHC, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, and Anthem, are urging them to sign, on short notice, contract provisions that enroll them as Medicaid providers. The San Diego County Medical Society warns that “some plans may require you formally to notify them in writing if you do not wish to participate since the new agreement may not require a signature.” Correspondence Retroactive and Infinite Taxes. New York State employers who thought they had paid their taxes in full for past years were told in July to pay up on a retroactive tax based on payroll for the fourth quarter of 2010 through third quarter of 2011. This “Interest Assessment Surcharge” is needed to pay interest on the $4 billion the state borrowed from the federal unemployment insurance trust fund since 2009. Owing to the recession, current tax receipts are inadequate to cover this interest. What if the federal government becomes unable to pay interest on its past deficits? I also noticed that the long-distance bill on my office phone consisted entirely of a plethora of taxes. Dividing the tax by the $0.00 usage fee gives an infinite level of taxation. As with ObamaCare taxing people for not having insurance, I am being taxed for not using my phone. Lawrence R. Huntoon, M.D., Ph.D., Lake View, NY Stealing from the Offering Plate. “Not for profit” hospitals rarely file their IRS form 990 on time. I believe these hospitals purposefully remain years behind to avoid any scrutiny of their current financial condition. allows them to claim “critical losses” and “impending bankruptcy” and other such lies, lies that are primarily responsible for bringing us ObamaCare. Remember all these “critical access” hospitals were going broke from seeing all of the uninsured folks in their emergency rooms? Yet few big hospital emergency rooms don’t have a building crane in front of them signaling their expansion of this portal to bankruptcy. An article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch stops short of outing one not-for-profit system’s participation in the uncompensated care scam, but provides much information on the lavish compensation of its executives. G. Keith Smith, M.D., Oklahoma City, OKhttp://SurgeryCenterOK.com Volunteers Help; FEMA Useless. While FEMA and the Red Cross were next to invisible after superstorm Sandy (some FEMA stations were shuttered due to inclement weather), and some crews were idled for days awaiting authorization, volunteers were hard at work. These included members of the Hallowed Sons, a Bay Ridge motorcycle club, according to an article inFrontpagemag.com (http://tinyurl.com/d2rayua). We saw the same thing. Dozens of trucks in parking lots standing idle. Non-government volunteers can be flexible; they do not have to answer to an employer. It seems that once there is a paycheck, the motivation to help is diminished, as the pay is the same whether one worked very hard or very little. Human nature is like that. Alieta Eck, M.D., Somerset, NJ Destroying Insurance. Basic principles of insurance include an expectation of increased losses and costs when insurance is used to manage risk because insurance stimulates moral and attitudinal hazards. These costs are generally small, kept in check by the cost of the insurance and the coverage stipulations. The symbiotic effect of cost: benefit is hijacked with a mandate/penalty. When consumers can’t choose because they are mandated/forced to buy insurance, insurance is no longer a tool. It has been honed into a weapon—a weapon of mass wealth destruction/redistribution. Principled policy would never mandate insurance. Janice Michaud, Manhattan Beach, CA Health Insurance an Endangered Species. Unlike other members of the species (such as property and casualty insurance), political predators have been killing off health insurance. In the economic ecosystem, the primary function of insurance is risk assessment. It provides a service by measuring the risk of society’s choices and providing a means to mitigate it. As a byproduct, it tends to steer people away from risky choices. In a way, insurance companies get paid to discriminate: they determine how much each risk pool participant needs to kick in to cover the likely claims. If they cannot do this, they will act like escrow agents rather than insurers, gathering money from plan participants and distributing it to providers. There will be more and more pressure for laws regulating personal behavior in order to decrease costs. Jeffrey Singer, M.D., Phoenix, AZ A Problem of Definition. I have never thought we should insure the uninsured. As a lifetime insurance planner, I understand a concept that most Americans don’t get: If you don’t pay for insurance with your own money, directly or indirectly, it is not insurance. It is welfare. Insurance is risk hedging, which requires that you give up something of value (cash, labor, etc.) in exchange for another party’s bearing some of the risk. Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and the like are not insurance programs. Blake Woodard, Health Benefits Reform Group How Much Do We Owe? According to an annual report by the U.S. Treasury, the federal government recognizes an outstanding debt of $17.5 trillion: $10.2 trillion in government debt plus retirement benefits owed to federal employees. Social Security and Medicare are not included because they are part of current law, and Congress can change them at any time. As a taxpayer I am liable for all the promises government has made to its employees. However, those employees are not necessarily liable for the promises they have made to me while collecting 45 years worth of taxes. John Goodman, Ph.D., National Center for Policy Analysis http://bit.ly/QO6cES Join AAPS Become an AAPS member today to carry on the 68-year tradition of protecting the patient-physician relationship. Join Today Newsletter AAPS News is the monthly newsletter of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Online archives are available back through 1989. Read Now

Avoiding Dr. B. Brother

Dr. Dotson, whose advice is below, closed his cardiology practice and now works as an employee for a hospital. This is what is going on, today, as medicine becomes impossible as a business. He wrote an article about how bad the medical care will be and added what I copied below.

One cannot say what will happen next year, what with the alternative to statism being Mr. Romney, this is a snide joke you may not get - yet, so prepare yourself.  

The government has agents to get you, there will be death panels, it will be illegal to pay a doctor directly, and the government is forcing doctors to push patients into databases all run through NSA (I looked this up). So, while we wait for the system to melt down into chaos, which would take more than your lifetime, Dr. Dotson has recommendations:  

Dr. Dotson's prescription for dealing with your health in the era of Obamacare:

Avoid contact with the existing health care system as far as possible. Yes, emergencies arise that require the help of physicians, but by and large one can learn to care for one’s own minor issues. Though it is flawed, the internet has been an information leveler for the masses and permits each person to be his or her own physician to a large degree. Take advantage of it! Educate yourself about your own body and learn to fuel and maintain it as you would an expensive auto or a pet poodle. One does not need a medical degree to:

1. avoid excessive use of tobacco or alcohol or, for that matter, caffeine;
2. avoid poisons like fluoride, aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, and addictive drugs (legal or illicit);
3. avoid unnecessary and potentially lethal imaging studies (TSA’s radiation pornbooths, excessive mammography, repetitive CT scans – exposure to all significantly increases cancer risk);
4. avoid excessive cell phone use and exposure to other forms of EMR pollution where possible (the NSA is recording everything you say and text anyway);
5. avoid daily fast food use and abuse (remember: pink slime and silicone) ;
6. avoid untested GM foods (do you really want to become “Roundup Ready?”):
7. avoid most vaccinations and pharmaceutical agents promoted by the establishment;
8. avoid risky behaviors (and, we do not need a bunch of Nanny State bureaucrats to define and police these);
9. exercise moderately;
10. get plenty of sleep;
11. drink plenty of good quality water (buy a decent water filter to remove fluoride, chloride, and heavy metals);
12. wear protective gear at work and play where appropriate (helmets, eye-shields, knee and elbow pads, etc.):
13. seek out locally-grown, whole, organic foods and support your local food producers;
14. take appropriate nutritional supplements (multi-vitamins, Vitamin C, Vitamin D3);
15. switch off the TV and the mainstream media it represents;
16. educate yourself while you can;

And, lastly…

17. QUESTION AUTHORITY!

In my blogtirement, I figure I can putter a bit and provide some correct thinking, so I will render an observation from afar, being in Toronto and away from work.

I have not read the recent decision regarding the insurance take over by the government, a requirement to comment on Obamacare, but because I have heard aware lawyers talk about it, not being able to leave the room, I can render an observation, contingent upon reading the decision, which I really would find as painful as watching the jets hit the World Trade Center. 

I stopped watching the crashes in toto after the third replay on Sept. 11.  Why dwell on catastrophe? Those who do are hypnotized.

So, here is the take away: my observations was correct that the commerce clause does not justify the establishment of the insurance take over scheme. If I understand it correctly, all nine justices agreed with that. So, you would think this a victory of paramount proportions?  Absolutely not. 

The decision maintains the pretense of a constitution and an aspect that people generally understood was granted lip service; yet, the decision has gutted any remnant of an operative Constitution. The ends analysis is all that matters, the means analysis is a con game played on those who have no knowledge of the Constitution. That is, anyone who went to a public school and gets their information from TV.

So, we agree, the commerce clause does not enable the establishment of an entire mechanism to take over an industry and penalize citizens for being independent. So, how do we get what we want?

The power to tax justifies whatever the government wants to do!  Read this over three times and see if you can figure out how we are not completely enclosed in a dictatorial structure. When the taxes hit in January, people will say: "Huh?"

More than that, the bill itself spelled out that it was NOT a tax. So, the idiots over in Congress had to be corrected. Similarly,  Congress said the bill was not "severable," meaning if one part falls, the entire bill falls.  Severability is addressed in every contract; every lawyer knows what it is. However, when Congress decides a bill is not severable, well, you can't take them at their word.

Therefore, all things are now enabled. The federal government can establish a tax, then any program the tax will cover is Constitutional.

This recent decision and the Seventeenth Amendment have eliminated the balancing of powers as the founders established. That was really annoying the bankers.  We really are becoming a democracy in that the mob rules and it is easy to buy people who have been dumbed down. Excuse me, I have to retrieve my Obama Phone from the Cash for Clunker's Car. It was so easy to subvert the Constitution.  When the taxes hit, the gate behind us will be locked.

The government can now declare a Legal Care Affordablity Act wherein everyone has to pay a tax so that everyone can have a lawyer.  Why not?  What's the difference?  The people who need a lawyer most are those who cannot afford one.  However, as corporations are people under the law, so free corporate, patent, trademark, collections law can be funded by the taxi driver. Or, is that just using the hobgoblin of consistency?

Now, we can have the National Peanut Butter Access Act or the Driver Relief Act where the lower and middle class are taxed so anyone who wants can get a GM solar car can do so. Anyone includes, of course, millionaires and billionaires. The great part of the GM law would be that the unions will be secure and can contribute to the central government. Now, how can we feed the teachers' unions?  Everyone should be entitled to a private tutor in Jamaica?  Anyone who puts their child in a catholic school has to pay a tax, even though they pay property taxes?

There is no structural difference between health insurance, legal insurance, car insurance, and so on.  None.  Nor is there anything in the Constitution that permits such a national program. The justices agree, except, on the other hand, they have held, if you can tax it, then it must be enabled, though by the terms of the Constitution it is not.  Mere hobgoblin. 

Stop.  Do not look for any logic. It will hurt. Drones will nod and the minority of people who reason are already moving assets off-shore. It may be that the only chance of rebound it a complete collapse and the subjugation of those who were expecting money from Obama's stash.

As I say, some day, I will force myself to read the majority decision for a reality check, but it will feel the same as watching the jets take down the World Trade Center. Why watch the 3,000 lives extinguished or the final elimination of the government that generations of Americans have died to protect from external enemies. 

Taxes are about to jump, the dollar is about to tank, the IRS will commence its attack, the economy will tank after that next weak hurrah, capital will disappear, as well as leave, people will ditch their citizenship before 2014, illegal aliens will be given the right to elect criminals, as they did in their home countries.  Democratic leadership is now socialist and Republican leaders go along with them because they both want state control and what better way than to subvert the notion of freedom.  In the meantime, Ron Paul is a kook.

So, have a nice July 4th bar-b-que.

Caveat: March 29, 2012

Remember the bill that was supposed to make medical insurance, that is insurance, available? All those who mumble about your coverage is too expensive or someone or other is making money, here is your salvation: 


From AAPS, The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons:


You government will tell you:

• what type of insurance you must purchase OR pay a penalty,
• what the insurance must pay for,
• what insurance can cost,
• what medical specialists will be reimbursed and at what rates,
• what treatments are allowed, and for whom, at what age,
• what medical screening tests are approved or not approved,
• who may or may not own hospitals,
• what taxes are imposed on individuals, businesses, medical device makers, and pharmaceutical companies.

Some harms have already happened:

• Health insurance premiums up 9% in 2010, another 9% in 2011, and more increases ahead;
• Loss of patients’ privacy and control of their personal medical records, when the Secretary of Health and Human Services ruled in October 2011 that all private medical insurance companies must send all patient data to Washington’s central database—without the patient’s permission;
• Jobs lost and new ones not created because employers cannot afford higher premiums to pay for all of the “free” services the government now requires;
• Medicare facing cuts of $500 billion to pay for medical care for younger people in Medicaid;
• Loss of medical specialists in many fields due to fee cuts;
• Higher taxes on medical devices, which in turn are passed on to consumers;
• A massive increase in the projected deficit as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now has doubled the estimate of cost it gave before the bill was passed.

The “Affordable Care Act” is not affordable at all: it is now estimated to cost $1.76 trillion over the next decade, adding markedly to the U.S. debt.

Obamacare and Judge Vinson

On 1/31 the decision of Judge Vinson was filed, starting the time to appeal which ends in at the end of the month.  After that, the opinion stands unless reversed in a new case by the Supreme Court.  Below is a interesting summary from a Tea Party Letter.  The text can be found by clicking on the title.

Note, the decision has not been appealed and no stay has been requested, meaning the law is void and any attempt to pursue it is illegal.  It is a fraud and usurpation of power.  This is not the case where a stay is granted pending appeal, which is something the Attorney General should have done the same day.  Note where things sit:

...Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote.

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."...

Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department plans to appeal Vinson's ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

"We strongly disagree with the court's ruling today and continue to believe - as other federal courts have found - that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," she said. "There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.

"We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any - including seeking a stay - are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides, that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires, and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need," she added.

Recall my frequent observation, these people believe in the end and dismiss any respect for the means.  Of course, all their voters should have medical care paid for by taxpayers....  Whart is wrong with everyone paying for everyone?

 America, on the other hand, is alone in history in its powerful tradition of looking to the means, due process, the rules of the nation.  At least, it that used to be what our leaders believed.  We are a nation of sovereign powers that joined together in a constitution for group protection.  That agreement was not the appointment of a new king.

Our tradition comes from resisting tyrants.  Now, they are within out borders and dismissive of the law, the negative commands as Mr. Obama sees the Constitution.  The current leftist PR campaign, which has to be organized, is that Judge Vinson's decision is a crazy outlier, a Dred Scot, judicial activism gone wild.  (They are apparently now against this activism.  Curious.)

There is no arguing with these people, they must be brushed aside if we wish to retain our culture.  Argument requires a respect for the process of the argument.  This is not within the philosophy of the Marxists.