White House pays Google to push Obamacare


White House pays Google to push Obamacare


Posted: August 22, 2011
2:21 pm Eastern

© 2011

In the “Why are we not surprised?” department, Surfin’ Safari has learned
that the government watchdog group Judicial
can prove the Obama administration used our taxpayer dollars to
orchestrate a campaign to manipulate search engines to promote Obamacare.

Under a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, lawsuit, Judicial Watch learned
through Department of Health and Human Services documents that the Obama White
House “helped coordinate a multimillion dollar taxpayer-funded campaign to use
Internet search engines such as Google and Yahoo to drive web traffic to a
government website promoting the Affordable Health Care Act (also known as

According to Judicial Watch, the campaign, which included PR firm The Ogilvy
Group, was designed “to increase public support for the president’s health-care
overhaul among key Obama campaign demographics, specifically Hispanics, blacks
and women.”

“The 2,328 pages of records, obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to a March
23, 2011, FOIA lawsuit (Judicial
Watch v. Department of Health and Human Services
(No. 11-608)), include
internal correspondence between officials at the HHS office of the Assistant
Secretary for Public Affairs, as well as communications with representatives
from The Ogilvy Group, the public relations firm hired by the Obama
administration to manage the Obamacare campaign,” Judicial Watch reports.

this link
to read how Obama and company did it.

Read more:
House pays Google to push Obamacare

Death Panels are Not ObamaCare’s Only Killer Provisions

Death Panels are Not ObamaCare’s Only Killer Provisions

January 7th, 2011

Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

Never mind the controversy over the so-called death panels in the controversial ObamaCare health care law. One pro-life group says the measure should be repealed because it contains rationing elsewhere.

Although the death panels — the voluntary advanced care planning that pro-life advocates have been concerned about because it could have doctors financially motivated to promote less medical care and lifesaving treatment — have occupied most of the debate, the National Right to Life Committee says other provisions cause concern.

In a new letter to House members that LifeNews.com obtained, NRLC urges a yes vote on the repeal measure the House of representatives is slated to consider next week.

The abortion funding ObamaCare doesn’t satisfactorily prohibit is a central tenet of the pro-repeal letter.

“As enacted, the PPACA contains multiple provisions authorizing federal subsidies for abortion, and additional provisions on which future abortion-expanding regulatory mandates may be based,” the pro-life group tells lawmakers.

But the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” also contains “multiple provisions that will, if fully implemented, result in government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care,’ NRLC says:

The department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will be empowered to impose so-called “quality and efficiency” measures on health care providers, based on recommendations by the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is directed to force private health care spending below the rate of medical inflation. In many cases treatment that a doctor and patient deem needed or advisable to save that patient’s life or preserve or improve the patient’s health but which runs afoul of the imposed standards will be denied, even if the patient wants to pay for it.

The law empowers HHS to prevent older Americans from making up with their own funds for the $555 billion the law cuts from Medicare by refusing to permit senior citizens the choice of private-fee-for-service plans….

Read more.

Form the blog author I’m Back From a nightmare Please Read

You may not even noticed I was not blogging from July 7 to Aug 18. I had sudden infection of the Gall Bladder. Boy did that hurt. I was in the hospital for 8 days part of it on the critical list. The infection affected other organs. After 8 days in bed very ill (critical list several days I lost all of my muscle tone. They wanted to remove the gall baldder but I am over weight, have Atrial fibrlation, sleep Apnea, I have bad knees so I walk with a walker, I am 76 years old and Asthma so surgery was too riscky,at that point drain was put into the gall bladder to keep everything under control, they put in a Chatheter for urine control They sent me to a Rehab center for 5 Weeks. My infection was cured and my other organs bounced back. I went to grueling Physical therapy and occupaional therapy every day. I’m still not back to my old self yet (a long grind). The surgeon decided to just remove the drain since I had no previous gall bladder problems.

The main reason I’m writing is a warning for overweght people. I am Morbidly Obese I weighed 350 pounds when I entered the Hospital I lost 35 pounds during the process. My Obesity put my life at risk and greatly complicated the rehab. Had I been at a reasonable weight none of this would have been no problem. This frightenend me enough that I’m getting back to the ATKINS Diet ( I lost fom 400 t0 300  a couple of years ago on this ) I know that being Obesity is a fatal disease. I would encourage any of you that are overweight to re-evalute the risk. I almost died from stupidity. I spent 8 days in the hospital in excruciating pain and the rest of the time in continual pain from intense therapy and dealing with catheter problems. I was fortunate to have exceptional Doctors. The rehab center run By Volunteer Of America was outstanding I’m sill weak and will undergo more in home therapy I used up a great deal of my heath benefits and had to pay $125 per day for the last part of my care.

Dont gamble like I did It almost most cost me my life and used up  a lot of my madicare benefits.  If Obama has his way I might have been denied any care at all


Obamacare will increase USA’s tab

Report: Obamacare will increase USA’s tab

April 24th, 2010

USA Today

President Obama’s health care overhaul law will increase the nation’s health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.
A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs. It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15% of hospitals into the red and “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors.

The mixed verdict for Obama’s signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

In particular, the warnings about Medicare could become a major political liability for Democratic lawmakers in the midterm elections. Seniors are more likely to vote than younger people and polls show they are already deeply skeptical of the law.

The report from Medicare’s Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law’s potential to achieve savings.

Read More:

JCT: Healthcare law to sock middle class with a $3.9 billion tax increase in 2019

JCT: Healthcare law to sock middle class with a $3.9 billion tax increase in 2019

April 14th, 2010

By Jay Heflin, The Hill

 There goes that campaign pledge

Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes — in 2019 alone — due to healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s official scorekeeper.

The new law raises $15.2 billion over 10 years by limiting the medical expense deduction, a provision widely used by taxpayers who either have a serious illness or are older.

Taxpayers can currently deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Starting in 2013, most taxpayers will only be able to deduct expenses greater than 10 percent of AGI. Older taxpayers are hit by this threshold increase in 2017.

Once the law is fully implemented in 2019, the JCT estimates the deduction limitation will affect 14.8 million taxpayers — 14.7 million of them will earn less than $200,000 a year. These taxpayers are single and joint filers, as well as heads of households.

“Loss of this deduction will mean higher taxes for 14.7 million individuals and families making under $200,000 a year in 2019,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told The Hill. “The new subsidy for health insurance would not be available to offset this tax increase for most of these households.”

Read More:

Healthcare aftershocks

Healthcare aftershocks

Politics | Returning to D.C., Democrats prepare to capitalize on the passage of Obamacare | Emily Belz

WASHINGTON—Members of Congress returning in mid-April from Easter recess face a traffic jam of legislation awaiting passage—and pressure from the White House to pass it. Democrats want to turn the momentum they feel from the passage of healthcare reform into more legislative successes before the end of the year. Passing certain measures could help Democrats in the November elections, too.

Campaign finance

During President Obama’s January State of the Union address, he delivered a stern condemnation of a Supreme Court decision on campaign finance and urged Congress to pass legislation to counter the decision. The court’s Citizens United decision allows corporations to spend money in favor of candidates or political issues—but corporations are still forbidden from directly contributing to a campaign. A majority of Americans, according to various polls, opposed at least the principle of an expanded role of corporations in elections. Democrats undoubtedly see political opportunity in passing campaign finance laws to counter the court’s decision.

Financial reform

Almost two years have passed since the financial crisis hit full force, and the Senate has just finished sweating out a financial regulation bill, which initially had input from one Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee. The lead Democrat on the issue, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, bypassed Corker in final negotiations over the bill as it became clear that Senate Republicans would oppose the bill. Corker called the Republican strategy an “error” because he believes the measure will become law and find popular support. Wall Street is an easy target in a hurting economy and an election year. The Senate could vote on the measure in coming weeks, and since the House has already passed its own version, the country could see new financial regulations by the summer.


A bevy of groups have held rallies in Washington calling for immigration reform—something President Bush attempted without success—but the issue probably won’t appear on the top of the congressional agenda this year. An election year is no time to be passing something as controversial and with so little political payback as immigration reform. President Obama said recently that his commitment to passing comprehensive immigration reform is “unwavering.” 


News articles have marked the death of climate change legislation—”cap-and-trade”—numerous times, but it’s one issue that doesn’t appear to be going away. The cap-and-trade tool itself, in which companies would pay a tax on their emissions, is defunct in Congress, but other measures to address emissions and energy are still alive and kicking. All eyes are on the Senate, since the House passed a cap-and-trade bill last summer. Forty-four Democrats voted against the House bill, so if Congress has any chance of passing a final bill into law, it would have to be substantially different and the vote will need to happen before November elections, when Democrats could lose a number of seats.

Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have been scheming up their own bill, which they plan to release in coming weeks. Their collaboration, dubbed “KLG,” is perhaps the measure that has the most possibility of passing at this point. Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, have also introduced a bill regulating emissions that could gain bipartisan support in the Senate.

The unspoken worry is that if Congress does nothing to address climate change, the administration will take action on its own, giving the Environmental Protection Agency a long leash to impose regulations. By next year the EPA will begin requiring the country’s largest emitters to buy permits for their greenhouse gases. The KLG bill would replace the EPA’s regulating authority on that issue. President Obama has lately also announced plans to expand nuclear energy and offshore drilling. 

Nancy and Harry want you to choose the best candy bar

Nancy and Harry want you to choose the best candy bar

Peter Wilson

A sample of the level of detail in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare):

SEC. 4205
(I) IN GENERAL.-In the case of an article of food sold from a vending machine that-
(aa) does not permit a prospective purchaser to examine the Nutrition Facts Panel before purchasing the article or does not otherwise provide visible nutrition in formation at the point of purchase; and
(bb) is operated by a person who is engaged in the business of owning or operating 20 or more vending machines, the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article.
Soon we will be able to make an informed choice between Snickers, M&Ms and Doritos.   Truly history-making. 
My only contact with vending machines is at rest areas, when I need a caffeine and sugar infusion to keep me in my lane.  I already know I shouldn’t buy the stuff, but I figure one Coke won’t kill me.  A little calorie sticker isn’t going to change my destructive habits.  I’m sure this is aimed at vending machines in schools, with some connection to the Childhood Obesity Demonstration Project (which by the way received $25 million for each budget year from 2010 to 2014).
Okay, so putting up a sign with the calories in a candy bar isn’t the end of western civilization.  But it’s a bit creepy that grown men and women sit around thinking this is so important that the federal government needs to get involved.


Health care overhaul spawns mass confusion for public

Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: April 06, 2010 10:04:45 PM

WASHINGTON — Two weeks after President Barack Obama signed the big health care overhaul into law, Americans are struggling to understand how — and when — the sweeping measure will affect them.

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.

“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage. That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism.

“We tell them it’s not free, that there are going to be things in place that help people who are low-income, but that ultimately most of that is not going to be taking place until 2014,” McLean said.

Adults with pre-existing conditions are frustrated to learn that insurers won’t have to cover them until 2014 (though those under 18 will be protected in late September); then they become both hopeful and confused upon learning that a federal high-risk pool for them will be established in the next few months. “Health insurance is so confusing. You add this on top of it and it makes it even more confusing,” McLean said.

The Obama administration is embarking on a years-long public education campaign about the overhaul, including a Web component. However, much of the guidance will depend on Department of Health and Human Services regulations that are still being developed.

Parents of young adults, including those who are preparing to graduate from college this spring, have heard that the overhaul will let them keep their children on their insurance plans until they reach age 26. That starts in September, however; they have to determine how to cover them until then.

A new wave of inquiries could come next month as federal COBRA subsidies for laid-off workers dry up.

Ann Wooten of Austin, Texas, a breast cancer survivor, said she didn’t understand whether the health insurance overhaul law meant that she should try to access private coverage again someday. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008 after she lost her insurance in a divorce, and soon after she lost her job at a convenience store as a result of the economic crisis.

Medicaid has covered her treatments but she must apply regularly to renew the coverage. She went back to school to learn hotel management and is seeking a good-paying job with benefits. She doesn’t know how the health overhaul will affect her options, and hasn’t yet found the time or energy to investigate.

Americans who already have good coverage aren’t so worried about the immediate implications, but some admit that they’re plenty confused.

“Why does it take so long for certain health care things to take effect?” said Sandra Preston, a state employee in Paterson, N.J.

Ben Wiesen, a software engineer who works for a small company in Tarrytown, N.Y., said he’d read up on the overhaul but remained concerned about the unknowns.

“The timelines have been pretty clearly stated,” he said. “It’s the execution and the details: How are they really going to roll out the changes, and who ultimately will be the arbiter and decision-maker?”

Actor Sam Robards, the son of Lauren Bacall and the late Jason Robards, was visiting Washington last week with his children and Danish-born wife. Chatting in front of the White House gate, he said he tried to follow news coverage of the overhaul but conceded that “I’m not totally clear” on the details. He said he was glad that he got good coverage through the Screen Actors Guild so he didn’t have to worry about it.

The couple previously lived in Denmark, which has universal health coverage. They applauded the overhaul’s aim of extending coverage to nearly all Americans.

Many small business owners are nervous about requirements being phased in.

“Members are still trying to wrap their head around everything that’s in this law,” said Michelle Dimarob, the manager of legislative affairs for the National Federation of Independent Business, the small-business lobby.

Dimarob said the lobby’s primary concern was that its costs would rise over the next four years as a result of fees, taxes and coverage mandates related to the overhaul.

“The next question that comes out of their mouths is: ‘What do I have to do right now?’ They need to start talking with their accountant, depending on how they’re organized, what industry they’re in and whether they’re offering insurance now and what kind they’re offering. We’re suggesting they talk to their agent or broker.”

Suntan businesses face a new excise tax starting in July as part of the overhaul. Other business owners are trying to understand new Internal Revenue Service reporting requirements related to business-to-business transactions that will kick in as a result of the new law. Others are looking ahead to coverage mandates for 2014 and calculating how many part-time versus full-time employees they should have to best contain costs.

While Obama has been touting a tax credit for small businesses that offer employees health coverage, Dimarob said many small businesses wouldn’t be able to participate. First they must do research to see whether they qualify. “It requires them to understand the intricacies,” she said.

The president has begun traveling the country to talk about the new law to ordinary Americans. In Maine last week, he explained many highlights of the four-year phase-in. However, Obama’s remarks were laced with enough political rhetoric to dilute his policy message.

Many organizations have produced timelines explaining when provisions are to be phased in. Still, it’s confusing for consumers, and until the administration issues more regulations, many details can’t be pinned down.

“The first meeting the president held with the team post-passage was on implementation,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. “Obviously this is a big task, and a campaign to ensure that people understand what benefits are coming online when obviously will be tremendously important.”

Obamacare vs. Jobs

The Public Policy

Obamacare vs. Jobs

By on 4.5.10 @ 6:08AM

Now that Obamacare has been enacted, we definitely won’t be knocking any new archways through the wall at our restaurant and expanding into the empty storefront next door.

With a waiting line on weekends, we could use the additional seats. The adjacent space could also be turned into a party room with seating for 50, perfect for communions, business meetings, and showers.

But there will be no sawing and hammering or reducing the neighborhood’s unemployment rate because we already have 42 employees and it’s at 50 workers that the hefty new fines, mandates and penalties kick in under Obamacare.

As the National Federation of Independent Business explains: “Businesses with 50 or more workers will now have to pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker if they do not offer health-care coverage and have workers who access the exchanges. This penalty has nothing to do with affordability and everything to do with punishing businesses for something the government has decided businesses should be forced to provide. Worse, with new mandates like these, what incentive is there for a firm to grow any bigger than 49 employees when it means employers may face such stiff fines? This approach is the exact opposite of a recipe for incentivizing job growth.

In our case, we already offer a health insurance program to our current employees. I don’t know if that program meets the requirements of Obamacare, or if it will meet the requirements of future upgrades that might be mandated by politicians who enjoy playing Santa Claus with other people’s money. But none of that matters if we forget about expansion and stay under 50 workers.

I also don’t know if the workers in the added space could generate enough revenue to provide the level of health coverage for themselves that Obamacare demands. The average profit in the U.S. restaurant industry on $1 million in sales is $47,000 — so even if we did an extra million dollars in annual sales in the new room, it’s unlikely that there’d be enough new revenue to provide full health-care coverage for the additional staff.

In the above scenario, what we get from the government for our additional risk-taking, investing, expansion and job creation is more bureaucratic interference, higher levels of regulation and a good chance of being fined.

Our reward, more specifically, for creating 12 new jobs might well turn out to be a fine of $2,000 for each of 54 employees, or $108,000, if we don’t jump well enough through all the new hoops that the central planners in D.C. come up with for firms with 50 employees or more.

The spin on the White House’s website paints a different picture, one that’s simultaneously simple and false. Under the “I am a small business owner” and “Find out what health insurance reform would mean for you” sections, there’s this question and answer: “Question: Will I be required to provide coverage that I can’t afford? The President’s answer: No.”

It’s like going to the website of Kim Jong Il.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, none of whom ever ran anything in the private sector as complicated as a good lemonade stand, would come up with a top-down plan during a recession that delivers penalties for job creation.

Obama might say that his priority is “jobs, jobs, ,” but what he’s largely delivered is an anti-business, anti-jobs climate of uncertainty and the statist idea that job creation is defined as ten guys standing around a pothole instead of six. As Investor’s Business Daily reports: “Since the start of last year, the federal government added 81,000 jobs. By contrast, private-sector payrolls have shed 4.71 million.”

Over jobs the past decade, small businesses created three-quarters of the nation’s net new jobs. They do that the best when they’re not tied up in red tape or drained of capital via excessive taxation, fines and political intrusions.

Obama’s call for the unionization of these small firms via card check represents a clear attack on the nation’s most successful job creators and a fundamental disrespect for the very essence of the nation’s independent businesses. “Independent” means that we didn’t go into business to please politicians or to meet with grievance chairs the first thing in the morning.

The death tax, additionally, returns next year with only a $1 million exemption and a full 55 percent rate of confiscating assets, creating further disincentives to growth. Why knock through the dining room wall if the IRS is just going to increase the business value by $1 million and come after my kids at the funeral for $550,000?

Rep. Henry Waxman, seemingly unable to tolerate this kind of talk, wants to haul CEOs into hearings to defend their public comments regarding the price of Obamacare to their firms. Maybe he should call me in too, because I’m saying that Obamacare killed a dozen or so jobs that I could easily have created and that Obama and Waxman can multiply that by the millions of small business firms in order to get some idea of the real price of their flawed health care reform.

Letter to the Editor

Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a columnist with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

States Need to Protect Us from ObamaCare

States Need to Protect Us from ObamaCare

By John Donaldson, MD

If individual citizens are to survive ObamaCare with access and quality, then their state legislatures need to act. Our salvation is less likely to come from the constitutional challenges filed last week by fourteen Attorneys General than from states assuming leadership in the establishment of a parallel system of health care that excludes the federal government from participation.
With the passage and signing of the massive new entitlement last week, a myriad of new regulations were imposed on the states and on individual providers. The Democrats intend to inflict these regulations using the much-abused Commerce Clause and enforce the new rules with the financial lever of federal funding of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Thirty-two million new patients will be dumped onto the states and their local providers, professionals, and institutions. About half of these patients will have a negative impact on the budgets of each state through the cost-shared Medicaid program. All of them will negatively impact providers with decreases in reimbursement, the addition of newly-entitled citizens (and likely non-citizens), the disappearance of commercial employer-based insurance, and a blizzard of costly new regulations and mandates from CMS.
State governments need to emulate the Hillsdale College model and design an alternative system free from federal dollars and the bureaucratic baggage that accompanies them. (Hillsdale College accepts no funds from the federal government.)
Federal Control
Currently, the federal government exercises control of much of health care delivery through the funding of the two government programs. Hospitals and providers must accede to standards established by CMS to receive funding. They must conform to EMTALA requirements. In many states, such as Florida, the state runs a duplicate administration to enforce state standards that may be nearly identical to those of CMS.
States license facilities and providers. As the only available federal lever is the threat to withdraw Medicare and Medicaid funding, providers might consider withdrawal from aspects of federal funding of their own accord, provided they are secure holding in their license by receiving state support. The state must keep control of all licensing.
Federal Intentions
It should be painfully obvious that the current reforms are not intended to provide additional access; “ObamaCare quality” will become an oxymoron. The financial demise of hospitals and insurance companies is likely take less than three years, making them eligible for “bailouts.” Surely we have learned by now that any move to control a system, while termed “bailout,” is in actuality a “takeover.” 
This mechanism was used in the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts: The federal government and the unions now control those corporations. In health care, insurance companies, like the automobile bondholders, will be dumped, and the hospitals will by necessity be globally budgeted by government.
None of this is accidental. Merely look at the regulations to be imposed on “doctor-owned hospitals.” The legislation will make Medicare certification virtually impossible for these facilities. Clearly, the intention is to control the total amount of health care available for all citizens by restricting access to various services. 
The picture is complete when one then begins to examine changes in reimbursement to institutional and individual providers. Radical decreases in payment to cardiologists for cardiac diagnostic services, invasive and non-invasive, are designed to dry up these lifesaving tests without regard to standards of care or patient need. Cost trumps quality to bureaucrats, and we are promised that half a trillion dollars is to be taken from Medicare/Medicaid.
State Counter-Moves
Each state needs to critically evaluate the negative effects ObamaCare will impose in the next two to three years. A little vision will lead state politicians to prioritize the needs of its citizens and conclude that the best way to assist its providers in delivering needed care is by imitating Hillsdale College.
If one looks critically at Medicare reimbursement to hospitals, the addition of more beneficiaries and deceased funding will drive all to bankruptcy. They will have to be funded by government, and any local control becomes merely an exercise to decide what care can be delivered for a fixed dollar amount granted annually by government.
This is the two-tiered model we see in most socialized countries. When the dollar amount is restricted, then quality and/or access are necessarily sacrificed. Politicians at higher levels then blame the local politicians or hospital administrators for failure to meet the needs of the population.
Hospitals very quickly will learn that productivity under global budgeting penalizes their financial health. Filling beds with acute patients by leaving them longer displaces patients needing elective procedures. Acutely ill patients will be found in corridors and elective patients only on ever-lengthening waiting lists.
New Thinking
States must now put aside the old thinking, for that system will fail under ObamaCare. They must begin to examine how they are going to help their providers, both institutional and professional, survive a bad business plan and still deliver needed care.
The states must realign their thinking to break the “Commerce Clause” intrusion by partnering with their providers. These partnerships would establish a parallel system of access outside of the current system. Like Hillsdale College, that system would accept no federal funds and would not participate in any of the federally based programs.
The first action is to remove any Certificate of Need (CON) for facilities that will guarantee not to accept any federal funding. These facilities would not have any requirement to provide an emergency room, allowing patients to have an alternative to Obamacare waiting lists to obtain timely and cost-effective relief for elective care.
To control costs and quality, each state would pass legislation that enshrines non-traditional delivery of care by granting state antitrust exemptions to providers. These exemptions have been shown to confer protection from the federal government intrusion. These non-traditional partnerships of state, hospitals, and physicians could deliver quality care protected from federal interference and mandated cost-shifts.
These partnerships would enjoy significant cost advantage over the “government” care. There would be no “sick tax” to cover government underfunding and no emergency room to absorb a large volume of non-payers. Restrictions would be placed on the type of care delivered to avoid end-of-life care and non-emergency intensive care.
Further enhancement in cost can be obtained by restricting access only to those patients who agree to arbitration rather than litigation. If the state is a partner, then sovereign immunity could be placed. Quality-based panels of physicians, maintenance of logical standards, and evidence-based medicine would deliver the highest standard of care at the lowest price.
These programs will allow insurance companies to reenter the market for those citizens willing to be “doubly taxed” for health care when needed. It will be cheap and un-discounted, paying cost-plus to the partnership. Each patient becomes an “equal-opportunity payer.” Insurance can return to spreading out risk rather than managing care.
Finally, the availability of these partnerships will allow communities to keep their best doctors and to maintain a quality alternative in the face of ever-decreasing access under ObamaCare. States that establish this type of model can expect to attract the best, as good doctors will cohort.
Those that don’t begin to plan now will be left only ObamaCare, waiting lists, and civil servant “who cares” medicine.