What Government Healthcare Does to Patients

I received an email today from a patient who was making an appointment to see a neurologist. She and the secretary were about to schedule the appointment for early next month. At this point, the patient mentioned that she was going to use Medicare to cover the visit. The secretary immediately pushed the appointment back to February 2010.

This is reality, folks. Doctors and their staff are hassled and under-reimbursed by Medicare. This secretary knew it and unfortunately the consequences of government mismanagement were pushed onto this patient who did nothing wrong except turn 65. Expanding the government's hand in healthcare is only going to result in more of the above situations. Fewer doctors will treat government covered patients unless forced, in which case we will end up with fewer doctors in general. Ultimately, patients will be the ones hurt the most. Contact your representatives and encourage them to do the responsible thing and stop any bill that expands government power in in your doctor's office.

ALERT: Democrats to Violate Cogressional Rules to Pass Unpopular Single-Payer Health Care Bill

In an effort to circumvent a full house vote, democratic leaders announced that the healthcare legislation might be packaged with other budget bills which would allow the legislation to pass with 51 votes as opposed to the 60 that's normally required.

"They're doing this because they know they don't have the 60 votes required," argued Sean Hanity. "It's pretty clear that's the only reason. So, to get this all straight, they don't allow members to read the bill before voting and now they're circumventing the legislative process to accomplish their goals. It seems the liberals have forgotten what the word democracy actually means."

[Article - Life and Heatlth Insurance News]

10 Questions for Obama about Health Care Reform

Today or soon, Congress is set to pass the Baucus version of the Health Care Reform bill; a version that no one, not even Congress, knows what's in it because it will be written after it is passed! (See Wall Street Journal article)

It goes without saying that millions of Americans are very concerned. The results of the nationwide poll conducted over the past two weeks at the website www.toptenhealthcarequestions.com has come up with the following top ten questions concerning Americans over the current version of Democrat Health Care Reform

"We asked the American people to select the top ten unanswered health care questions from a list of over thirty questions. Over 44,000 Americans voted in our poll, and today, we're announcing the results:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ebl_OFEaU8&feature=player_embedded

Here is the text of the questions:

#10 (1540 votes) :
At a town hall meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina on July 29 you said " I will be available to answer any question that members of Congress have. If they want to come over to the White House and go over line by line what's going on, I will be happy to do that." A month ago, Congressman Phil Roe sent you two letters asking you for a time and place to conduct this line by line review. You've not responded to him. Do you intend to honor your promise and sit down with Congressman Roe and hold a serious line by line review of proposed health care legislation or was your July 29 statement merely an insincere political gesture ?

#9 (1626 votes) :
The Administration has repeatedly represented to the American people that the proposed health care reform plan will be deficit-neutral. Referring to the Administration's plan, the Congressional Budget Office Director recently said "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount." Official CBO estimates for the Administration's proposals have, in fact, indicated additional deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years. Why should the American people trust the Administration's numbers rather than those of the C.B.O. on this point? Related Article

#8 (1863 votes) :
The health care reform bill currently pending before the Senate Finance Committee includes over $100 billion in cuts to Medicare. The Administration promises that the cuts to Medicare will not reduce health care benefits to seniors. The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently told senators that the cuts in the bill WILL reduce health care benefits to seniors. Why should seniors trust the Administration more than the nonpartisan C.B.O. on this point? Related Article

#7 (2264 votes) :
You have accused the opponents of this Healthcare plan of using "lies" and "scare tactics" and spreading "disinformation." During your speech on Sept 9, you state that "One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hand't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, AND HE DIED BECAUSE OF IT". In truth, the man, Otto Raddatz, began chemo and was preparing for a stem cell transplant. During a routine review by the insurer, it was found that he had not disclosed having gallstones and an anuerysm. Mr. Raddatz had never been told about the gallstones or been urged to treat them. His sister, appealed to the Attorney General, who reversed the decision within two weeks and Mr. Raddatz had the transplant and lived another 3 and half years. -an indication that the company's decision to rescind his treatment didn't cause his death. Mr. Raddatz didn't die from being denied treatment, but your speech stated so. How can you accuse critics of creating lies about the healthcare proposal when on several occasions your own words have been found to be untruthful?

#6 (2278 votes) :
The Administration argues for a government-funded health insurance plan on the grounds that more competition is necessary in order to reduce health care costs. In response to a question from CNN's Wolf Blitzer as to why the Administration's health care reform plan does not include also interstate competition as a means to reduce costs, David Axelrod responded that "[Interstate competition] is not endemic to the kind of reforms that we're proposing" At least one study has concluded that interstate competition would be likely to reduce health care costs and reduce the number of uninsured. If competition can be expected to reduce costs and increase coverage, why is interstate competition not 'endemic' to the Administration's proposed reforms? Related Article Related Article

#5 (2335 votes) :
You indicated in your interview with George Stephanpolus that if people did not buy insurance that they would be fined a penalty fee but you insisted that it is not a tax. However, on page 29 of the Senate bill that Mr. Stephanopoulus refers to, it states that the fee will be an "excise TAX." How do you expect Americans to believe you have a grasp and knowledge of the healthcare legislation and are able to run it, when it is apparent that you had not even read the bill? Not even 29 pages of it.

#4 (2423 votes) :
The Administration has repeatedly claimed that its health care reform plan will not cover illegal aliens. The Congressional Research Service recently issued a report contradicting the Administration's position, stating "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently participating in the Exchange." Is the Congressional Research Service in error? If so, where is the error? Related Article

#3 (2640 votes) :
You have said you will pay for healthcare by savings through "waste and fraud". By this statement then you are indicating that if you are able to quantify the amount in order to turn it into savings, you must be able to identify where it is. If that is true, why aren't you stopping the waste and fraud now since you can identify it instead of waiting until some unknown deadline? Don't you think this would engender some trust from the American people that you are making an effort to save money or that you know how to?

#2 (2890 votes) :
Why won't government employees and elected officials be covered under a nationwide health care plan? Your employer, the American taxpayers, would like to drop your family's existing coverage and force you into the public option that you so energetically endorse.

#1 (3238 votes) :
Mississippi has adopted lawsuit abuse reform (tort) in their state and has reduced their healthcare premiums by 42% in the last year due to this reform. Gov. Barbour estimates America can save almost 100-200 billion dollars a year implementing just this one reform. Other than the fact that Tort Attorneys and their groups donate heavily to the DNC and did to the Obama campaign, is there a good reason or explanation you can give the American people as to why you have put the Tort attorneys' interests ahead of the healthcare interests of the citizens of this country?

Baucus Bill to Skyrocket Insurance Premiums

Health Insurance companies engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to examine the impact of the Baucus Health Care reform bill on private insurance premiums. The results are startling. The audit examined the impact of four key changes in the health care reform legislation and found private health insurance premiums will rise by 111% over the next 10 years if these provisions are enacted.


Here is what this means in dollar values.

This analysis shows that the cost of the average family coverage is approximately $12,300 today and could be expected to increase to approximately:

• $15,500 in 2013 under current law and to $17,200 if these provisions are implemented.

• $18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if these provisions are implemented.

• $21,900 in 2019 under current law and to $25,900 if these provisions are implemented.

This analysis shows that the cost of the average single coverage is $4,600 today and could be expected to increase to:

• $5,800 in 2013 under current law and to $6,400 if these provisions are implemented.

• $6,900 in 2016 under current law and to $7,900 if these provisions are implemented.

• $8,200 in 2019 under current law and to $9,700 if these provisions are implemented.

Democrats and the White House claim this analysis is unfair because it does not consider subsidies to the poor and lower middle class. Of course, not everyone will receive these subsidies. The insurance industry responds that subsidies don't change the fact prices will increase.