Prescription for Disaster

Health Care Compact Supporters Pushing for Election of Advocates of Socialized Medicine

Wednesday, February 29, 2012
According to a reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a so-called "Super PAC" named the Campaign for Primary Accountability is advocating for the election of Dennis Kucinich in his primary race in Ohio's Ninth Congressional District. The Campaign for Primary Accountability, according to the article, has been largely funded by Leo Linbeck III, Eric O'Keefe and Tim Dunn.  The article notes that Linbeck and O'Keefe are also behind the idea of the Health Care Compact (Dunn is too, but that was not noted in the article).

What does Dennis Kucinich believe when it comes to healthcare? He is an unabashed advocate for socialized medicine - in other words, a single-payer system. In fact, when the House first voted on ObamaCare, Kucinich voted against the bill and latter changed his vote (see an article from The New York Times about his switch). 

Should it be surprising that Linbeck and O'Keefe would support a supporter of socialized medicine? Not really. 
As AHEC has previously reported, last March "Vice-Chairmen of the HCCA, Leo Linbeck III also acknowledged that the compact and socialized-medicine were not at odds with each other, stating 'If a state really wants to do a single-payer system, they should do it.'”  In other words, Linbeck has actually been a cheerleader for states to use the health care compact as a vehicle to enacting socialized medicine in their state. (See here and here).   

So it should come as no surprise to people that when it comes to political support, Linbeck has chosen to help elect statists and supporters of socialized medicine.

Read the full Plain Dealer article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Senate to Vote on Conscience Protection Tomorrow

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

According to Roll Call, the United States Senate will vote on conscience protection on Thursday.  Stay tuned for more details.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Obama Wants to Slash Health Care for Military

Wednesday, February 29, 2012
According to a post at Big Government, the Obama Administration is poised to push military servicemen and women into ObamaCare's exchanges by making their current healthcare program unaffordable. This idea is particularly grievous because military personal often have special health care needs (such as rehabilitation, occupational therapy and prosthetic assistance) as a result of war wounds. To push them into a civilian system is to effectively deny our nation's wounded warriors the help they deserve.

Here is what Big Government had to say:

The Obama Administration plans to force active duty service members and veterans off the military’s current health care plan, Tricare, and into ObamaCare’s state-run healthcare exchanges by increasing Tricare premiums between 30 percent to 78 percent the first year and a crushing 94 percent to 345 percent every five years thereafter.

By squeezing service members and veterans out of Tricare and into ObamaCare through significantly higher Tricare premiums, the Obama Administration believes it can pinch $1.8 billion from Tricare in fiscal 2013 and $12.9 billion by 2017.

By comparison, Mr. Obama spent $20.5 billion on his Department of Energy green energy grants and loans program, 80 percent of which went to companies owned or tied to Mr. Obama’s top fundraisers.

You can read the full post here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Bookmark and Share

ObamaCare Program Busting Through Fiscal Estimates

Tuesday, February 28, 2012
A new report from HHS has some troubling information on a specific part of ObamaCare - high risk pools. HIgh risk pools is an alternative to provide health coverage for people with pre-existing conditions who are unable to obtain coverage from alternative sources. In such a pool, the government assumes the financial burden to provide healthcare to those who qualify for the pool.  

ObamaCare, which radically transforms America's health care system and which worked well for the vast majority of Americans, was passed because, we were told, it was dangerous for 50 million people to be uninsured and that the uninsured - with their catastrophic costs - were dragging down the system.  How does this hold up to reality? According to The Apothecary, only 48,879 people with pre-existing conditions have enrolled in the high risk pools. The number of enrollees is less than anticipated but the cost per enrollee has been far greater than expected. While the government was expected to pay $13,026 per enrollee the actual cost is come in at more than twice that figure at $28,994.

And has this number been well-targeted in proportion to the demographics of the uninsured? In a word, no. While 55% of the uninsured were under the age of 35 (approximately 27.5 million people) only 21% of the same group enrolled in a high-risk pool. That means that of those under the age of 35, 10,200-some people enrolled in a high-risk pool out of 27.5 million people uninsured in that group - or 3/100ths of 1 percent. 

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

Free Isn't Free (When it Comes to Contraception)

Tuesday, February 28, 2012
President Obama is forcing insurance companies to provide certain services for "free".  But if history has shown us anything, the government is never able to provide anything for free - even when it makes others actually pay the costs through mandates. 

Insurance companies are very good at assessing actuarial information - including the impact that government regulations and mandates - and how that information will affect insurance premiums. While the Obama Administration has suggested that mandating coverage for certain services (like contraceptives) will help insurance companies avoid costs related to unintended pregnancies, the insurance companies don't agree with the Obama Administration's ultimate economic conclusion.  

According to one article, "a new survey of 15 large health plans shows they are dubious of such savings.
Asked what impact the requirement will have on their costs in the year to two years after it goes into effect, 40 percent of the participants said they expect the requirement will increase costs through higher pharmacy expenses."  An additional 33.3 percent of the insurance companies said they weren't sure the President's assessment was accurate, 20 percent said the Obama Administration's would not affect their insurance plans but that was because the insurer already included contraceptives in their premiums. Only 1 insurance company out of 15 actually agreed with the White House's assessment of the economic impact of Obama's policy.

Ultimately, this issue is not about contraception, it is about whether government should be able to dictate economic decisions to businessess - forcing them to buy and sell certain products as part of their business model and regardless of what that impact may have on costs and on their consumers. Government is incapable of assessing the issues related to cost with the same effectiveness as those participating in the free market - meaning both business and consumers. 

You can read the full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Mark Steyn on the Perversion of Rights

Monday, February 27, 2012
Mary Steyn has a wonderfully written commentary on the impact of ObamaCare on individual liberty and how ObamaCare undermines individual rights. Please read his full commentary here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

Senator Sessions Makes the Case for Kagan Recusal in ObamaCare Suit

Monday, February 27, 2012
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has written a powerful piece examining whether Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the ObamaCare lawsuit that the court will hear in March and concluding that she most certainly should recuse herself.  Senator Sessions made the following comments:

"According to Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have 'served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.' In United States v. Gipson, the Tenth Circuit held that judges must recuse themselves if they have 'previously taken a part, albeit small, in the investigation, preparation, or prosecution of a case.'" Justice Kagan has certainly met this criteria for recusal.

"Recusal due to previous participation in a case is not an admission of wrongdoing, but rather an expected consequence when a government lawyer accedes to the bench. Indeed, Justice Thurgood Marshall — the last solicitor general to become a justice, and the justice for whom Kagan clerked — recused himself from 98 of the 171 cases decided by the Court in his first year, and most of them were cases in which the federal government was a party."

"Justice Kagan has recognized that her involvement as solicitor general in the preparation of the government’s challenge to Arizona’s immigration law prohibits her involvement in that case as a judge — even though the lawsuit was not filed until two months after she ceased performing the duties of her office due to her nomination, and even though she testified that she was not asked to express an opinion on the Arizona law. In contrast, Justice Kagan’s involvement in the preparation of the government’s defense of the health-care law began at least as early as January 2010, four months before her nomination and two months before the bill became law. That she would not follow the same course in the health-care case is dubious. These facts require recusal."

Read Senator Sessions full article at National Review Online, here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Krauthammer Explains ObamaCare vs. The Constitution

Saturday, February 25, 2012
In a wonderfully written piece, Dr. Charles Krauthammer explains how ObamaCare is fundamentally at odds with the United States Constitution. Here is an excerpt from his article:

First, its assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration's regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not "religious," and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion -- no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

Second, its assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services -- all of which are free. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington's takeover of the private system of medical care -- a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

Under ObamaCare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control -- and presidential whim.

Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court -- because never before has the already inflated Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

This constitutional trifecta -- the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen -- should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

You can read the full article at TownHall.com. 


Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

ICYMI: Contrary to Liberal Myth, Women Testify Against the Assault on Conscience Protections

Friday, February 24, 2012
Democrats and their friends in the mainstream media are spreading a definitive lie that no women had testified at a recent House hearing in opposition to the Obama Administration's assault on conscience and religious beliefs. The myth that the Democrats are trying to perpetuate is that Republican men are trying to deny something to women and won't even let women testify on the issue. Their claim is totally false and outright dishonest.

The Heritage Foundation details how this is blatantly false and has more information.  As Allison Dabbs Garrett, senior vice president for academic affairs at Oklahoma Christian University testified: 

"This debate is not about whether women have the right to obtain these drugs. Rather, this debate is about whether those who believe that contraceptives or abortifacients violate their religious convictions must pay for them. There is a vast difference between the right to make a purchase for oneself and requiring someone else to pay for it."

She was one of several women who testified against the President's policy.

UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation has more information about the assault on religious freedom here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 

Bookmark and Share

Federal Court Protects Economic Liberty in HealthCare

Thursday, February 23, 2012
Yesterday, a federal court struck down a Washington state law that required pharmacies to dispense drugs such as Plan B and ella (which are widely regarded as abortifacients or abortion-inducing drugs). Several pharmacists had sued the government arguing that the state law infringed on their religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment. The court agreed. Read the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's press release here.

Having read many comments on this decision from people who have argued that pharmacists should be forced to violate their conscience in order to keep their jobs, I would respond thusly:

Should government have the power to tell any business what products it must sell and dictate the manner in which those products should be sold? Setting aside the idea of religious faith for a moment, do we want government to have the power to dictate the specifics of how every business has decided to serve its customers. Should a business be forced by government to spend its resources to purchase and stock  a product regardless of whether there is customer demand?  At stake here is also the principle of economic liberty and personal autonomy. A business should be free to decide what products it will choose to sell and which it will choose not to sell. 

In most cases, businesses will make those decisions based on economic principles - a profit-motive and supply and demand (both of which should be viewed as noble considerations, not vilified as seems to be common in the current political culture). But in cases where a business person is concerned about more than profit and their values lead them to make a decision that is not driven by economics and in fact may run counter to the "best" economic decision, that business owner must be free to follow the dictates of their conscience. 

Otherwise, we run the risk of letting government micro-manage every aspect of our economy, to dictate matters of supply and demand, to set prices, to govern the inventory decisions of each and every business. We have tried this in the past and with spectacular failures as a result. FDR demonized utility companies and pushed for government intervention and control - it drove America further into the depression. Nixon tried the same thing with price controls on oil and it lead to an energy crisis. 

Ultimately, government should be the last entity to make these kind of decisions. Their track record is so poor we would be better off letting each business owner make their own decisions and letting the free markets reward business. This is a far better method for allocating capital resources (and birth control) than any government mandate. 

UPDATE: Senator Jim DeMint has an excellent article in The Washington Examiner about the broader issues of ObamaCare and individual liberty. Read his commentary here.


Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

1 2 3 4 Next

 
AHEC on Facebook AHEC on Twitter AHEC on Twitter

Recent Posts

Tags

Archive