Should Doctors Be Allowed To Refuse Obama-Care Patients?

That is a question that will become a hot topic in our political culture very shortly.

See: U.S. Plans Stealth Survey on Access to Doctors

The administration says the survey will address a “critical public policy problem”: the increasing shortage of primary care doctors, including specialists in internal medicine and family practice. It will also try to discover whether doctors are accepting patients with private insurance while turning away those in government health programs that pay lower reimbursement rates.

Can the government force Doctors to accept Obama-Care patients? (What would or could stop them?)

Should the government force Doctors to accept Obama-Care patients? (Only thugs and thieves would say "Yes.")

The only alternative that the government has in getting Obama-Care patients to be readily accepted by Doctors is to have a payment schedule that is competitive with private insurers. That "jus' ain't a gonnah happen." The costs would be astronomical, just like all of the Obama-Care critics have been saying from day one. Forcing Doctors to accept Obama-Care patients would allow the leftist political class to pretend that their medical care scheme will work, at “cheaper” costs. (But only for a short time.) Of course, finding any doctor after that point will be a whole different problem.

Then the question that will be debated in the political sphere is whether or not government can prevent Doctors from quiting or retiring.

UPDATE [June 28, 2011 - 22:49]

See: Surprise: HHS drops plan to snoop on doctors

See: Program to Use Mystery Shoppers to Probe Doctors Scrapped

See: Kirk asks Obama administration to reconsider 'stealth' doctor survey

The Congressman has some interesting questions for Kathleen Sebelius. Among them:

2) Please provide records of how the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) of Chicago, Illinois, won a federally competitive bid to carry out this work.

It is an interesting question.

Hat Tip to Hot Air for the Update links.

Trump Bails, Gingrich Fails.

See: Trump Not Running for President: 'Decision Does Not Come Easily Or Without Regret'

"I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election," Trump said in a statement on Monday. "I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half heartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector."

No regrets from me. I was having too much trouble taking Trump seriously as a candidate to begin with.

And in another corner this Sunday, we had the former Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, proving that he is now completely unfit to lead the Republican Party in any capacity.

See: Gingrich Blasts House GOP's Medicare Plan

White House hopeful Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare "right-wing social engineering," injecting a discordant GOP voice into the party's efforts to reshape both entitlements and the broader budget debate.

I have a middle finger here for you Newt.

In the same interview Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Gingrich backed a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance, complicating a Republican line of attack on President Barack Obama's health law.

And here is the other middle finger for you Newt.

Newt, you're fired!

If you would like to read a transcript of the interview, you can find it here : Meet the Press transcript for May 15, 2011 (The msnbc website is a real POS. It is a huge pain in the ass to navigate but if you would like to go to the original source, help yourself.)

[Additional] See: Gingrich Shifts to Damage Control

Judge Vinson: "The entire act must be declared void."

See: Judge rules healthcare reform unconstitutional

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications," Vinson wrote.

Fireworks in the courts today.

How is that "Hope and Change" working for you?

It seems it ain't working so well for Obama's "progressive" supporters.

See: Progressives Ask: Is It Obama, Or Is It Us?

Left-wing activists described the year leading up to Barack Obama's election as exhilarating, empowering and exciting.
Now, if you ask progressives gathered for the America's Future Now conference in Washington, D.C., about the first year and a half of his presidency, they say:

"Frustrating."

"Sobering."

"Brutal."

At least, those were the reactions of, respectively, union activist Nick Weiner, University of Minnesota political science professor Dara Strolovitch, and Steve Peha, who heads an education reform consultancy.

"I had hoped for something different," Peha explains. "I had hoped for the president who ran for office, and not so much the one who's in office."

Peha says he's a pragmatist -- he knows that campaigning and governing are different. But "what I wish is that President Obama had worked a little less for his ideal of bipartisanship and a little more for the people who elected him," he says.

This is the prevailing feeling at this week's America's Future Now conference. And no one is hiding it.

There are several things to remark upon here.

One, the Obama administration has easily been the most partisan administration that this country has suffered through since Johnson. His "take it or leave it" strategy for ramming through his health-care scheme is example enough of that. On that charge, the progressives are talking out their ass. They wouldn't know what "bipartisanship" was if it reached across the isle and slugged them.

Two, Obama is the most progressive President this country has had since Woodrow Wilson. Again, his health-care scheme is proof enough of that. We could also talk about his high tax policy and his regulatory policy per Cap and Trade. Then there is that whole financial crises fiasco created by the progressive geniuses Barney Frank and Chris Dodd that Obama managed to make much worse. He even seized control of GM for goodness sake. GM is now a government run enterprise strait out of the Mussolini play book. What do the progressives want! Any more progressive and and this administration would be considering controlling political speech by taxing internet news aggregators or bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine" to radio.

Three, Obama cannot realistically satisfy his hard left supporters. These are the people on the fringe of reality, more inclined to look at working through the constraints of the law and the constitution as backsliding and evidence of a spiritual weakness. These people were going to turn on him no matter what. That doesn't mean that we can't enjoy the schadenfreude while watching his own snakes turn on him.

Heh. . . Here is some "Hope and Change" good and hard you "progressive" dip-shits.

Is The Medicare System Beginning To Implode? How Will Politicians Respond?

How will politicians respond if the Doctors refuse to participate in the Government medical care schemes?

See: Texas doctors opting out of Medicare at alarming rate

Texas doctors are opting out of Medicare at alarming rates, frustrated by reimbursement cuts they say make participation in government-funded care of seniors unaffordable.

Two years after a survey found nearly half of Texas doctors weren't taking some new Medicare patients, new data shows 100 to 200 a year are now ending all involvement with the program. Before 2007, the number of doctors opting out averaged less than a handful a year.

“This new data shows the Medicare system is beginning to implode,” said Dr. Susan Bailey, president of the Texas Medical Association. “If Congress doesn't fix Medicare soon, there'll be more and more doctors dropping out and Congress' promise to provide medical care to seniors will be broken.”

How long before some Congress Critter proposes forcing Doctors to accept Medicare (think Obama-care) patients at whatever compensation rate the government sets?

Can The Federal Government Mandate That You Buy A Private Product?

Washington State's Attorney General will be making the argument that it can't. A surprisingly supportive editorial from the left of center Seattle Times editorial board explains.

See: AG Rob McKenna has a case to challenge the health-care law's individual mandate

The main challenge here is on one point — whether the federal government can require people to buy a private product: health insurance.

The argument centers on the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause, which gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce ... among the several States ... " The lawsuit argues that requiring a citizen to buy insurance goes beyond regulating commerce. It is, says McKenna, "forcing people into the stream of commerce."

The law calls its mandate a tax. But if you comply, your money goes to the insurance company. You pay the government only if you don't comply — which means, McKenna says, "It's not a tax. It's a fine."

We think McKenna has a good case, and one the progressives who condemn him ought to appreciate. These critics are so often right about the dangers of corporate power, and particularly the rapacity of insurance companies.

Click on the link – Read the whole editorial.

I am hopeful that Rob McKenna and the other states Attorney Generals will make a good case before the Court.

Dying For A Glass Of Water

See: Dying Patient Was Refused A Glass Of Water

Ruth Sauter, the patient's daughter, said she was disgusted by the treatment her father had received.

She told The Daily Mail: "His condition was not life threatening, and nurses had specific instructions to keep close tabs on him.

"'But their appalling lack of care, and cruel behaviour killed my father...It's so much worse knowing that he died alone, thirsty and scared on that ward."

After being admitted in the morning, he was given antibiotics and oxygen, but was later forced to ring his wife to tell her that he was not allowed any more water as he had earlier knocked over a cup.

After ringing the switchboard, a doctor was called to the ward, only for a nurse to tell him that the patient was "overreacting".

This is a product of the English socialized medicine scheme.

It is important to keep in mind that in a socialized medicine scheme, the patient is not the customer. The real customer is the political-class that runs the socialized health-care administrative bureaucracy.

The patient is little more than a notation in a budget allocation.

Trusting your health to the benevolence and competence of politicians and bureaucrats is insane.

~~~
[Update]

FinallyFree at CC Found another article on the same subject. It goes into a little more detail then the one that I found.

See: Dying hospital patient phoned switchboard begging for a drink after nurses said 'No'

Social Security In The Red

In the wake of the passage of the Democrat's Health Care Rationing Scheme, News comes out that our nations Social Security system has reached a point were it will be paying out more then it takes in.

See: Social Security Payouts to Exceed Revenue This Year

The problem, he said, is that payments have risen more than expected during the downturn, because jobs disappeared and people applied for benefits sooner than they had planned. At the same time, the program’s revenue has fallen sharply, because there are fewer paychecks to tax.

Analysts have long tried to predict the year when Social Security would pay out more than it took in because they view it as a tipping point — the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency, unless Congress strengthens the program’s finances.

" . . . unless Congress strengthens the program’s finances?"

How, pray tell, can "Congress strengthen the program’s finances" without raising taxes, cutting benefits, or some combination of both?

When the Democrat's health-care rationing scheme runs into problems, won't they have to raise taxes, cut benefits, or some combination of both?

Why would we want a government that can't manage a simple retirement plan to be put in-charge of rationing our health-care?

If the Democrats break Social Security, people will just be broke. If the Democrats break their health-care rationing scheme, people will die.

The Myth Of The Pro-Life Democrat

Bart Stupak sucker-punched the pro-life movement.

In the end, the power that the Democrats would gain by giving themselves the ability to ration health care was more important to Congressman Stupak than was the pro-life stance that he had claimed to hold.

You can hear Stupak try to explain as Megyn Kelly rips him a new one.



He had 4 votes. Enough to kill the bill.

Stupak sold out. (and cheaply at that.)

See also: Schlafly: Health Care Vote Set to Expose the Myth of the 'Pro-Life Democrat'

"Any formerly pro-life Democrat who casts a 'Yes' vote for this Senate health care bill tonight will be forever remembered as being among the deciding votes which facilitated the largest expansion of abortion services since Roe v. Wade."

"Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn't willfully align themselves with the Party of Death."

I think that Phylis Schafly makes a strong argument. When tested, Stupak valued life less then he valued the Democrat Party's accrual of political power.

Fighting Back

Two things to do without delay.

1. Send a Republican a campaign contribution. It does not have to be a large amount. It just has to be something.

I will be sending some money to SarahPAC tonight.

2. Send a Thank You email to everyone that voted against that abomination tonight, even the Democrats that voted against it.

These people need our thanks. They fought the valiant fight.

The Count

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 165

H R 3590 RECORDED VOTE 21-Mar-2010 10:49 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments
BILL TITLE: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Democratic
Ayes 219, Noes 34

Republican
Ayes 0, Noes 178

TOTALS
Ayes 219, Noes 212

For the full list of names, See: FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 165

Republicans Score A Huge Victory For The Constitution

In the battle over the Democrat's Health Care Rationing scheme, the Republicans have won a huge victory against the Democrat's consideration of using a shady and frankly unconstitutional gimmick to pass the bill in the house without a direct vote, with a slight-of-hand trick called the Slaughter Solution.

The Slaughter Solution is now dead.

See:House Opts Against 'Deeming' Health Care Bill Passed

House Democrats on Saturday decided against using a controversial tactic to pass the Senate's version of the health care bill,  a senior House source confirmed to Fox News.

The decision capped an ongoing discussion on whether to use a so-called "deem and pass" strategy that would allow House members to approve the Senate version of health care bill without an actual vote before casting votes on a second "fix-it" resolution, known as reconciliation.

This is a big win for Republicans.

Now the Democrats will have to put their names on the Yea's and Nay's of their plans to ration health-care. Now we can hold them accountable for this monstrosity without them being able to pretend that they did not vote for the damnable thing.

See also: Rules Committee meeting descends into chaos

HT: JCM, PiGuy & CC

The Democrat Health-Care Rationing Scheme Legislation As A Vote Winner

Can the Democrats really believe that their Health-Care Rationing Scheme will be good for them in the Midterms and beyond?

In a word, Yes.

See: EXCLUSIVE: Biden Says White House Getting Earful from Nervous Lawmakers Over Health Care

Biden said once these provisions take effect and the American people feel the impact, lawmakers who vote "yes" will reap the benefits.

"They're going to see right off the bat the horrible [things] aren't real and there are some very good things that become apparent immediately," Biden said. "Once the American public realizes that ... [legislators are] going to be rewarded."

Can the Democrats really believe that?

Yes they can.

We are talking about true-believers.

Many on the left believe that the rightly guided (god) state can make for a paradise on earth. To us, that is a madness, but to them it is in the realm of the possible.

In fact, our oppositions to their efforts to bring about thier new and inherently benevolent god-state is seen by them as proof our meanness and selfishness.

Sure, they understand that some of the things that they will do will make some people unhappy for a time, but they believe that the paradise of the god-state that they are ushering in is worth a few minor discomforts that some may experience. They believe that once the god-state is in place, that everyone that was discomforted will realize that it was selfish of them to complain of their discomforts and come to support with the whole of their heart and soul the greatness and the glory of the benevolent new god-state.

Can they really believe that the ends justify the means?

I think that they really do believe that they are doing a right and good thing. They believe that they are doing a good thing worth every effort and with an end so worthy that any means to bring it about can be justified.

We have seen the Democrats seriously entertain the Slaughter Solution. I think that made it clear that they really are based in a "the ends justify the means" world-view.

They are only held back by the limits of what they can get away with.

.

We are about to embark on a brave new future.

FIghting The Democrat's Health-Care Rationing Scheme The Idaho Way

Idaho points the way.

See: Idaho challenges national health care proposal; more states may follow

Washington (CNN) -- Idaho on Wednesday became the first state to pass a law saying no thanks to part of President Obama's health care proposal.

The Idaho Health Care Freedom Act says in part, "every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty."

Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, a Republican, said Wednesday he signed it because he believes any health care laws should ensure people are "treated as an individual, rather than as an amorphous mass whose only purpose in this world is to obey federal mandates."

The Democrats are not just a federal party. They operate on the State and local levels as well. They should all be made to feel the heat from the Federal Democrat's attempt to ration Health-Care.

The Democrats at the State level need to feel threatened by the blow-back from what their partners are doing at the federal level.

One way to do this is to contact your State government Representatives and ask them to pass a bill like Idaho's.

No Democrat should feel safe, no mater how low or obscure the office they hold. All Democrats need to know that they will be held accountable for the Federal level Democrat's attempt to screw the citizens of the United States.

Call your local state representatives and ask them (politely) to follow Idaho's lead.

There is no time to hesitate or wait. Call them today.

Just How Stupid Is Democrat Congressman Patrick Murphy?

It may be that he just thinks the voters in his district are stupid enough to accept his weird rationalization for voting for the Obamacare abomination.

See: Murphy supports health overhaul

The 8th District congressman said the measure, if passed, will result in the "largest middle-class health care tax break in our country's history."

Calling it the "largest middle-class health care tax break in our country's history," Congressman Patrick Murphy said Tuesday he will support health care legislation, and the process by which it becomes law doesn't concern him.

What planet does Congressman Patrick Murphy(D) live on?

[Additional - added at 11:45am]

Democrat Congressman Patrick Murphy has a press release on his website that offers his rationalization for voting for the Obamacare abominations.

See: Patrick Murphy Announces Support for Long Overdue Health Insurance Reform

Health insurance reform is deficit-reducing, a condition that Congressman Murphy, as a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, stressed was critical to his support for any health insurance reform measures. In fact, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office, all of the current legislative proposals reduce the deficit. Pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and other industry groups, who will see millions of new customers under this legislation, are contributing hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for insurance reform.

How can effectively nationalizing what amounts to about one sixth of the US economy reduce the deficit? Is it possible that he really believes what he is saying?

Rationing Health-Care By A Procedural Slight Of Hand.

By hook or by crook, the left-wing extremist that run the Democrat Party are going to get their "Health-Care" bill onto the President's desk one way or the other. The Slaughter Trick is beyond the pale. They will set them selves up to ration your healthcare if they have to rape the Constitution to do it.

See: House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

We are down to the wire. Now is the time for you to do something.

Here are two toll-free phone numbers to the Capital Switchboard.

Try these ones first
877 762 8762, 866-877-4455 (Should work for both the House and Senate.)

800 965 4701 (House)
800 828 0498 (Senate)

As always, be civil and polite.

When you call these numbers, you will reach an operator. Ask the operator to transfer you to your congressman's or Senator's office. You will need to know your critter's name. Don't rely on the operator to know who your congress critter is. If you don't know, try this website. Enter your zip-code and your State. It will give you your congress critter's name and contact information.

This is important.

It is a game changing.

This is a watershed moment in our nation's history.


~

And here is one that needs to hear from all of us.

Nancy Pelosi - Phone (202) 225-4965, Fax (202) 225-8259

Will The Democrats Slaughter The Constitution For Socialized Medicine?

Nancy Pelosi is expressing confidence that the Democrat's Health-care bill will pass. Her confidence may be well founded. The Democrats are contemplating a maneuver that has been dubbed The Slaughter rule. Named after Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.), Chair of the House Rules Committee.

See: The House Health-Care Vote and the Constitution

Under her proposal, Democrats would pass a rule that deems the Senate's health-care bill to have passed the House, without the House actually voting on the bill. This would enable Congress to vote on legislation that fixes flaws in the Senate health-care bill without facing a Senate filibuster, and without requiring House members to vote in favor of a Senate bill that is now politically toxic.

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution may pose a problem for the Democrats, but since the Health-care bill is an “all the marbles” play for them, I think that they would be willing to risk a constitutional chalenge, thinking that if in the off chance the court rules in their favor, they will own the whole of the Republic outright.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

M. Connell explains in the Wall Street Journal Article cited above:

As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the "exact text" must be approved by one house; the other house must approve "precisely the same text."

Again, I think that the Democrats may be willing to gamble that the present makeup of the Supreme Court could possibly rule in their favor.

If they lose, its back to the status quo with a loss of a few seats in congress. The voting publics notoriously short memory will help them regain the lost seats in a few election cycles. No real penalty will be paid.

However, if they were to win at the Supreme Court, they will have made everyone in the Republic dependent on them for their health-care.

Lose a little versus win the whole damn enchilada.

(See also: Slaughter Solution Unconstitutional)

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

See: Vladimir Lenin: “Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.”

See: The story of Medicare

HT : Design Czar at CC

Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"

Pelosi on why the health care bill should be passed.



Would you give a Democrat a blank check?

Elections have consequences.

The Political Lesson Of The Massa Scandal

Pick your staff carefully, with loyalty being paramount.

Massa's sin was in choosing his staff poorly. One of them betrayed him.

See: Massa Details 'Salty' Comment That Led to Resignation, Slams Dem Leaders

But Massa said the staff member "never said to me that he felt uncomfortable" and "never went to anybody." 

Rather, he said "somebody went to another staff member who was uncomfortable for him. It was a third-party political correctness statement."

 

The cruel truth is that everyone has a price. For some, the price is so impossibly high that you can trust your life to them. Others will drool for a mere thirty pieces of silver.

You need to know your people's price. What are their limits? What are their concerns? What are their weaknesses? What can make them fold on you?

In politics, when you select your core and your support staff, you must know these things.

Especially if you are a Democrat going up against Rahm Emanuel and the Obama Administration.

Republicans are not safe. While it is very unlikely that any Republican would "Massa" another, the Democrats would do it to you in a heartbeat.

Know your staffers.

Know them better than Rahm knows them.