Perhaps one of the most chilling videos you will see talking about the implications of ObamaCare.  Dr. David Janda is a nationally known orthopaedic surgeon from Ann Arbor, Michigan.  If this video does not convince you of the need to repeal ObamaCare, nothing likely will.

The new healthcare law will pack 32 million newly insured people into emergency rooms already crammed beyond capacity, according to experts on healthcare facilities.

A chief aim of the new healthcare law was to take the pressure off emergency rooms by mandating that people have insurance coverage. The idea was that if people have insurance, they will go to a doctor rather than putting off care until they faced an emergency.

People who build hospitals, however, say newly insured people will still go to emergency rooms for primary care because they don’t have a doctor.

 

“Everybody expected that one of the initial impacts of reform would be less pressure on emergency departments; it’s going to be exactly the opposite over the next four to eight years,” said Rich Dallam, a healthcare partner at the architectural firm NBBJ, which designs healthcare facilities.  

“We don’t have the primary care infrastructure in place in America to cover the need. Our clients are looking at and preparing for more emergency department volume, not less,” he said.

Some Democrats agree with this assessment.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) suspects the fallout that occurred in Massachusetts’ emergency rooms could happen nationwide after health reform kicks in.

Massachusetts in 2006 created near-universal coverage for residents, which was supposed to ease the traffic in hospital emergency rooms.

But a recent poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians found that nearly two-thirds of the state’s residents say emergency department wait times have either increased or remained the same.

A February 2010 report by The Council of State Governments found that wait times had not abated since the law took effect.

Read the rest of the story.

By Michael Tanner 

In 301 AD, the Roman emperor Diocletian imposed price controls on most commodities and professions in the empire. The penalty for raising prices was death. Yet the controls failed utterly, leading to shortages, more inflation and the near collapse of the imperial economy.

Now, nearly two millennia later, President Obama seems determined to demonstrate how little we’ve learned.

Yesterday, the president proposed giving the federal government the power to regulate insurance premiums. Undoubtedly, this will be politically popular — at least, in the short term. Insurance companies aren’t exactly America’s most loveable industry. Recent premium hikes will result in real hardship for many Americans.

There is, of course, a certain arrogance in the assumption that Obama, Nancy Pelosi and a bevy of government bureaucrats know exactly what something should cost. No doubt, as soon as they finish setting insurance prices, they’ll move on to negotiating Tracy McGrady’s contract renewal.

But more important, attempts to control prices by government fiat ignore basic economic laws — and the result could be disastrous for the American health-care system.

Most people think of prices and costs as the same thing, but from an economic perspective, they aren’t. Prices are what people pay to receive a good or service. Costs are what it takes to produce the goods and services. In this case, limiting the prices that insurers can charge does nothing about the underlying costs of health care.

Insurers unable to charge more for an increasingly expensive product can be expected to trim costs in one of two ways:

• They can drop their most expensive customers — in this case, the sickest, who consume the most health care. Many companies are already doing this, a major source of dissatisfaction with the health-care system. In fact, the president wants to prohibit companies from doing this.
• They can cut back on their reimbursement rates to hospitals and physicians. But neither doctors nor hospitals, any more than insurance companies, are willing to operate at a loss. If payments fall below their costs, they’ll simply stop taking patients. One only has to look at government programs like Medicare and Medicaid to see how this works.

Medicare already reimburses at roughly 80 cents on every dollar of actual costs. Medicaid pays even less. As a result, more than a third of physicians have closed their practices to Medicaid patients; 12 percent no longer accept Medicare patients.

If private insurers begin similarly to cut back their reimbursements, some hospitals may go out of business, and some doctors may close their practices. Retirement in Florida may begin to look a lot better than another snowy New York winter. Others will stop accepting insurance or set up “concierge” practices in which they see only a small number of privately paying patients.

Thus, price controls on insurers will ultimately lead to rationing — the lack of available health-care goods and services.

Read the rest of the column.

Your excellent editorial “The ‘Cost Control’ Bill of Goods” (Dec. 14) doesn’t emphasize a potential stealth cost-control aspect proposed in the bill. It will start pilot programs that would transfer the gatekeeper role to doctors at the bedside, a role currently held by “payers” (HMOs and government-agency insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid).

The transfer will be via capitation fee payments, making clinics “responsible” for the cost of care of “insured lives” for one year. Like the more powerful payers, such clinics must restrict orders for care—or go broke. The clinicians’ other choice is to be left out of the income stream, if they are not incorporated in a comprehensive “provider accountable care organization.” These will bid for capitation fee rates at payer population auctions of the insured lives to be serviced.

The illusion of many pundits and policy makers is that mini provider gatekeepers can control costs after the very powerful payer gatekeepers have failed for decades. The problem for patients is the dilemma of all managed-care gatekeepers: cost, quality, access; pick any two. It is not pleasant to think that one’s gatekeeper doctor will have to decide whether to order surgery for your painful hip or only to increase the dose of Ibuprofen—a choice that patients won’t know about, since managed-care corporations and capitated doctors rationing care are carefully hidden behind the Orwellian double-speak of “pay for quality, not quantity,” “well care, not sick care,” “responsibility,” “accountability,” “pay for outcomes,” and other artful illusions.

The economic reality is that no rationing of care supply will ever control costs, when the problem is demand inflation driven by popular insurance tax subsidies too sacred to repeal. Consider that when federal fiscal “necessity” overwhelms empty slogans, scores of new bureaucracies created in ObamaCare would be able to implement Draconian rationing in collusion with subservient insurance and “provider” corporations. The high costs, as well as the rationing powers included in the more than 2,000 pages of the Obama Care Senate legislation are very real.

Robert W Geist, M.D.
St. Paul, Minn.

Government guidelines would likely have forbidden the test I used to discover my wife’s cancer.

By SENATOR TOM COBURN – I recently suggested that seniors will die sooner if Congress actually implements the Medicare cuts in the health-care bill put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. My colleagues who defend the bill—none of whom have practiced medicine—predictably dismissed my concern as a scare tactic. They are wrong. Every American, not just seniors, should know that the rationing provisions in the Reid bill will not only reduce their quality of life, but their life spans as well.

My 25 years as a practicing physician have shown me what happens when government attempts to practice medicine: Doctors respond to government coercion instead of patient cues, and patients die prematurely. Even if the public option is eliminated from the bill, these onerous rationing provisions will remain intact.

For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients’ access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.

Section 6301 of the Reid bill creates new comparative effectiveness research (CER) programs. CER panels have been used as rationing commissions in other countries such as the U.K., where 15,000 cancer patients die prematurely every year according to the National Cancer Intelligence Network. CER panels here could effectively dictate coverage options and ration care for plans that participate in the state insurance exchanges created by the bill.

Additionally, the Reid bill depends on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in no fewer than 14 places. This task force was responsible for advising women under 50 to not undergo annual mammograms. The administration claims the task force recommendations do not carry the force of law, but the Reid bill itself contradicts them in section 2713. The bill explicitly states, on page 17, that health insurance plans “shall provide coverage for” services approved by the task force. This chilling provision represents the government stepping between doctors and patients. When the government asserts the power to provide care, it also asserts the power to deny care.

Read the rest of the column.

From OneNewsNow

A government panel of doctors and scientists recommended Monday that women in their forties should not have annual mammograms and older women should reduce their use of the screening device. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded that early and frequent breast cancer screenings often lead to false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women’s odds of survival.
 
Nicole Kurokawa, a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, says the recommendation by the government task force brings the U.S. in line with British policy.
 
“Unfortunately what Britain has, as a result of their policy, is a 69-percent, five-year survival rate for breast cancer; whereas the U.S. right now has a much better survival rate — our survival rate’s about 84 percent,” she points out. “And that’s really not a system that we want here, particularly with a disease like breast cancer.”
 
The analyst explains that with breast cancer, early detection is key to survival rates. “And in pushing detection back, what we’re doing is…sending a message that it’s just not important,” she laments.
 
Kurokawa says the new mammogram advice from the USPSTF reaffirms that when the government is in control of healthcare, Americans are really going to suffer.
 
In fact, concern has been expressed in media interviews that the new guidelines represent a form of healthcare rationing that puts financial considerations above lives. On Wednesday, Heath and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to distance her agency from the Task Force’s recommendations, stating she would be “very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action.”
 
The Task Force advises HHS, and its members are appointed by the HHS. None of the current 16 members are oncologists.

Meet the unelected body that will dictate future medical decisions.

As usual, the most dangerous parts of ObamaCare aren’t receiving the scrutiny they deserve—and one of the least examined is a new commission to tell Congress how to control health spending. Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a “global budget” on Medicare, with radical implications for U.S. medicine.

Like most of Europe, the various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission “critical to our fiscal future” and “one of the most potent reforms.”

As envisioned by the Senate Finance Committee, the commission—all 15 members appointed by the President—would have to meet certain budget targets each year. Starting in 2015, Medicare could not grow more rapidly on a per capita basis than by a measure of inflation. After 2019, it could only grow at the same rate as GDP, plus one percentage point.

The theory is to let technocrats set Medicare payments free from political pressure, as with the military base closing commissions. But that process presented recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Here, the commission’s decisions would go into effect automatically if Congress couldn’t agree within six months on different cuts that met the same target. The board’s decisions would not be subject to ordinary notice-and-comment rule-making, or even judicial review.

Yet if the goal really is political insulation, then the Medicare Commission is off to a bad start. To avoid a senior revolt, Finance Chairman Max Baucus decided to bar his creation from reducing benefits or raising the eligibility age, which meant that it could only cut costs by tightening Medicare price controls on doctors and hospitals. Doctors and hospitals, naturally, were furious.

Read the rest of the column