Medicare for All—No Care for You

December 17th, 2019]

Contributor & author: Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Preview: 

• Democrat presidential candidates are sparring over how much to expand Medicare. Should it be Medicare for all, for people over 50 and children, or for “all who want it”? Does “all” include veterans, Native Americans, and military dependents, who now have their own government program? Does it include everybody who happens to be in the country, legally or illegally? And do the benefits include just what today’s Medicare beneficiaries get, or everything the candidate can think of—dental, eyeglasses, hearing aids, mental health treatment, addiction treatment, “sex-change” surgery, etc.? Does it even include long-term care, which the Affordable Care Act had to discard because it was unaffordable?
• Medicare for All means government-directed, corporate-managed care. The managed-care “insurance” cartel, giant hospital chains, and private-equity-owned medical practices will make sure that you get your flu shot (likely mandatory), your anti-tobacco lecture, your silver sneakers, your 15 profitable “preventative” drugs, cross-sex hormones, abortion on demand—and eventually your terminal sedation.
• Beyond that, you’re on your own—if there are any private options left and if you still have any after-tax money.

_______________________________________________________________________________

A constitutional look at the healthcare bill…you’re not going to like this.

  

 

“However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface.  In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices.  Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated.”

From: Michael Connelly 
            Retired attorney, 
            Constitutional Law Instructor 
            Carrollton, Texas  
Well, I have done it!  I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009.  I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law.  I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional.  What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. 

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying.  The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. 

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system.  All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals.  Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government. 

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface.

Why healthcare reform is not about quality or access

 

 

Original PPJG Article :  September 14, 2009 : 1:05 p.m. CST

 

 

Marti Oakley (c) 2009

In a recent article, I reported the underlying themes and problems with the healthcare reform proposal.  Basically, that it had nothing to do with reform other than establishing a backdoor REAL ID.  Otherwise, the entire proposal is nothing more than a directive on how you can access care, what care you can access and if and how you would qualify and who is going to get crowned the “czar”. 

Also included in this legislative slight of hand is the “public option”.  Sounds good doesn’t it?  And you can keep your private insurance if you want to.  Well, of course you can!

Here’s the deal. If your employer decides he doesn’t want to offer insurance to his employee’s, he will have to pay a fine (tax) which as it turns out will be only a fraction of what it is costing him to offer you that insurance.  What do you think he will do?  How long do you think it will take your employer to realize he could make a lot more profit if he dropped your health coverage? 

Where does this leave you?  Looking for that “public option”, I would think.  Both public and private insurance will be managed by the same insurance companies whose former employees reported to the senate committee hearing that they were paid to deny legitimate claims; to avoid paying claims and were paid bonuses to do so.  But the governments remedy is to put them in charge of these two options.