Would the Health Reform Prescriptions Offered by President Obama and
Congressional Leaders Help Patients?
April 1, 2009

STATEMENT ON HEALTH REFORM
From the Health Policy Consensus Group

President Obama repeatedly has reassured the American people, "If you've got
health care already, and probably the majority of you do, then you can keep your
plan if you are satisfied with it. You can keep your choice of doctor."  
Research shows 82 percent of Americans rate the health care they receive as good
to excellent.

At the same time, there are serious problems of cost, value, and access
throughout our health sector.  It is vital to address these problems.  But any
health reform proposal to change what needs fixing also must preserve the
freedom, innovation, and quality of American medical care that people value.

We believe a better functioning, more competitive, and transparent marketplace
would cover more people and deliver the higher-value care we seek.

We are gravely concerned that several of the proposals offered by the President
and the Congressional leadership would make matters worse, not better.  These
flawed prescriptions for radical change should not be accepted as part of any
serious and sustainable health reform proposal:

* A new government health insurance plan

* An employer "play-or-pay" mandate

  * A uniform, government-defined package of benefits.

* A mandate that individuals must purchase insurance.

* A National Health Insurance Exchange extending federal regulatory powers over
private insurance.

  * Federal interference in the practice of medicine through a federal health
board, comparative effectiveness review, and other government intrusions into
medical decision-making.

We explain below why we believe these ideas would diminish individual Americans'
freedom and control over their personal health decisions.

A new government health insurance plan:

A new national health plan, to be operated by the federal government, is being
proposed with the claim that it would give Americans a choice between public or
private health plans.  While there may be initial assurances that the plans
would operate on a level playing field, the government inevitably will use its
regulatory, pricing, and taxing authority to favor its plan.

Congress would give the government plan the power to dictate prices so it can
artificially under-price private plans and drive them out of this one-sided
"marketplace."

Many people then would be left with little or no choice, as employers would drop
their current coverage and send their workers into the public plan.  Research by
The Lewin Group shows that as many as 118.5 million Americans would lose or be
switched out of private health coverage.

This massive crowding out of private health insurance would undermine the
employment-based coverage that most Americans under age 65 have today.

Once private plans have been driven out of the market, people will realize that
the government plan will not be able to sustain the quality and quantity of
benefits they were promised.

Government instead will begin to ration care and services, driving out
innovation, competition, and patient-centered quality.

A "play-or-pay" mandate that employers must provide or pay for health coverage
for their workers:

Employers would be required to pay an unspecified "meaningful contribution"
toward their workers' health insurance or pay a new tax to fund the government
plan.

If they are not "playing" in the new system by directly providing health
insurance, then they will be "paying" to fund the government plan.

It is a political certainty that the option to "pay" this new health insurance
tax will be set lower than the current levels at which employers now "play" by
providing their own coverage, enticing many of them to transfer their employees'
insurance coverage to the mercies of the new government plan.

Whether they choose to pay or to play, small employers will be hit especially
hard by a new mandate to finance all or part of the health insurance premiums
for their employees, directly or through new taxes.  Any initial subsidies to
them will quickly be overtaken by higher mandated costs.  As they absorb new tax
burdens they cannot control, the result will be more lost jobs and lower wages
for workers.

A uniform, government-defined package of benefits:  Decades of experience in the
states confirm that whenever benefit packages are determined politically rather
than by the marketplace, legislators find it very difficult to say no to anyone
asking that their services and products be included.

People would have a "choice" of only the expensive one-size-fits-all plan
mandated by government, significantly increasing the cost of health coverage. 
Workers would pay for this more expensive coverage through lower wages, lost
jobs, higher taxes, and lower-value health care.

A mandate that individuals must purchase insurance: If the federal government
requires everyone to purchase health insurance, it must define what qualifies as
insurance.  All signals indicate this would be a very expensive benefits
package, designed as one-size-fits-all in theory but delivered as
one-size-fits-none in practice.

  Sweeping government mandates create a conflict between escalating costs,
limited resources, and the false guarantee of rich coverage – triggering price
and supply controls.

Many individuals will need subsidies to receive coverage that otherwise would be
unaffordable to them, but taxpayers will resist filling an abyss.

As a result, political leaders will try to cover rising costs indirectly and
invisibly – through general revenue subsidies, tax increases, deficit spending,
and escalating fees, fines, and taxes imposed on employers.  And to make the
mandate work, the government also must establish and enforce binding penalties
for individuals who do not comply.

A National Health Insurance Exchange extending vast federal regulatory powers
over private insurance:  A new National Health Insurance Exchange is being
proposed to "streamline the purchase of health insurance."

It actually would steamroll over private choice and patient preferences by
providing a vehicle to extend sweeping federal regulation into virtually every
corner of our health sector.  This would reduce choice for patients and
discourage or prohibit innovation and flexibility in health insurance offerings
that today are helping many companies and families balance their health costs
with other needs.

Federal interference in the practice of medicine through a federal health board,
comparative effectiveness review, and other government intrusions into medical
decision-making:

Congress appropriated $1.1 billion in taxpayer funding for comparative
effectiveness research in the economic stimulus bill, establishing the Federal
Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which will assess
medical treatments available to Americans.

This provides an irresistible temptation for politicians to go beyond providing
better information and start restricting the treatment choices available to
patients.  House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said the intent was
that drugs and treatments "that are found to be less effective and in some
cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed."

The clear and present danger is that any centralized health board will use the
cover of comparative effectiveness findings to meet budgetary bottom lines, at
the expense of patients' medical needs and personal preferences.

This is a particular danger to the health of people who suffer from rare
conditions or who need access to specific medicines and treatments but who may
lack the political power to influence the reviewers' decisions.

There are many problems that need to be addressed in the health sector, and the
signatories to this statement have written extensively about our ideas for
reform.

Because the reform agenda is moving rapidly through Congress, we believe the
American public should be aware of the likely impact of the policies described
in this statement which are under active consideration by elected leaders.

We believe that the proposals put forth by the Administration and Congressional
leaders would harm, not help, patients and would not fulfill the goals and
promises made to the American people.

http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,13/category_id,0/blog_id\
,1187/type,33/

First, Do No Harm:  Sign the Petition Against ObamaCare

"The physician's creed to "First, do no harm" also is a warning to America's
policy makers and leaders as they consider massive changes to our health sector.

Congress and the Obama administration are on a dangerous march to dramatically
expand government control over America's health care.

President Obama's health care reform proposals would put us on a super-highway
toward a single-payer health care system, which Mr. Obama said during the
campaign really is his first choice in health reform.

Government health insurance already is in place for children, the poor, the
elderly, veterans, and others.

The next step to locking in a single-payer government-run system (which fewer
than 10% of Americans say they favor) is to put all working Americans and their
families on a government health program.

Would the health reform prescriptions being offered by President Obama and
congressional leaders help patients?

It seems a fitting question to ask since Mr. Obama has assured Americans they
will be able to keep their doctor and their current coverage if they are
satisfied and will have even more choices.

The Health Policy Consensus Group at the Glaen Institute took that as a
challenge to ask whether the policy prescriptions fit the rhetoric by analyzing
the major reform pillars Washington leaders are proposing.

They issued a statement this week, signed by 25 health policy experts from the
major market-oriented think tanks, saying, we are "gravely concerned" that their
proposals "would make matters worse, not better…and would not fulfill the goals
and promises made to the American people."

Then, the Galen Institute put together a petition at DoNoHarmPetition.org that
is based on the Consensus Group statement.

This gives you a chance to let policymakers know they should not go in the
direction of much more centralized, government control over our health sector.
Please go to our dedicated website and tell us if you agree.

Here is the Consensus Group's point-by-point list of their objections to the
Obama/congressional proposals:

A new government health insurance plan that would cause up to 119 million people
to lose the private health insurance they have today and "ultimately ration care
and services, driving out innovation, competition, and patient-centered
quality."

An employer "play-or-pay" mandate that is basically a new tax on jobs and will
cause more lost jobs and lower wages for workers.

A uniform, government-defined package of benefits that will leave us with a
"choice" of only the expensive one-size-fits-all plan mandated by government.

A mandate that individuals must purchase insurance, leading to government
dictates of what insurance must cover, what we must pay, and what fines and
penalties we will face if we don't comply.

A National Health Insurance Exchange that "would steamroll over private choice
and patient preferences by providing a vehicle to extend sweeping federal
regulation into virtually every corner of our health sector."

Federal interference in the practice of medicine through a federal health board,
comparative effectiveness review, and other government intrusions into medical
decision-making that creates "an irresistible temptation for politicians to go
beyond providing information and start restricting the treatment choices
available to patients."

The Galen Institute;s next Consensus Group statement will explain their vision
of how a better functioning, more competitive, and transparent marketplace would
cover more people and deliver the higher-value care we all are seeking. W

Any health reform proposal to change what needs fixing also must preserve the
freedom, innovation, and quality of American medical care that people value.

Sign the petition so your voice can be heard to First, Do No Harm and put
patients first."

http://www.DoNoHarmPetition.org

Quality US Health Care: Thank  Money-  and  Wealth

The ReasonPharmg blog of Jan 16, 2009 makes the following sage observation:

"....When a third party is introduced, the patient is insulated from the true
cost of care. He starts to want the best of everything, regardless of how much
it costs -- because his insurance company is covering the cost.

The insurance company, on the other hand, wants to reduce costs as much as
possible, even if it means that some patients are dissatisfied with their care.
Thus, instead of mutual trade to mutual benefit, we get a system nobody is happy
with...."

This, of couse, is true- and is one of the promary causes why the premiums of
health "insurance" policies rise higher every year:

Patients are largely puchasing services with pre-paid all-inclusive policies
with relatively low out-of-pocket costs at the time of service that causes them
to try to_ maximize_ their utilization of high tech services to get the most
services ( even if wasteful) for their premium.

A great little booklet that explains how this works and how today's health care
consumers can be the _solution_ to rising health care costs is:

"Why health care costs so much: The Solution - Consumers"
- by Dave Racer & Greg Dattilo, CEBS

http://www.alethospress.com/howmuch.htm

Review:
http://medinnovationblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-health-care-costs-so-much-two-\
book.html

Excerpt on why what we regard as health "insurance" today is actually pre-paid
health care that provides a strong incentive for patients to overspend on
wasteful procedures and drive up the cost of policies:

http://www.alethospress.com/images/CHAP5%20EX.pdf

The Reasonpharm blog continues:

" Doctors, medical researchers, and pharmaceutical company executives do not
work for the benefit of others. They work because of the pleasure they get from
tackling the problems of human disease -- and because of the financial rewards
they stand to gain. ...

The fact that there's money in medicine is not a sad fact to be lamented -- it's
the reason that we can enjoy good care..."

A physician colleague added his own observation on the article's last point as
follows:

< MONEY is NOT the reason we have good health care. WEALTH is the reason.>

This makes an important point. MOeny and the profit motive provide the incentive
for health care providers and medical researchers to compete on the market for
their own self-interest to offer high quality medical goods and services to
patients.

However, many of these goods and services would never exist in a context where
the absence of wealth did not provide the necessary means to invest in the
research, discovery, production, purchase or widespread implementation of
expensive medical technologies.

An excellent article that discusses the crucial difference between "money and
wealth", and the moral meaning- and the root- of money, is here:

http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=1826

The ReasonPharm post on January 16,2009:

It's not wrong to put a price on health

In yesterday's New York Times, Pauline Chen lamented our growing comfort with
the role of money in medicine. She refers to healthcare as "the gift of life,"
which cannot be reduced to a mere commodity that can be quantified and analyzed.
And she cites the example of a man suing his estranged wife for either the
return of the kidney he donated to her or $1.5 million as evidence that medicine
has become too commoditized, saying that there "should have been outrage over
putting a dollar value on human life." Is she right?

It's telling that Ms. Chen calls healthcare "the gift of life." Throughout the
whole article, the tone is: Healthcare is getting easier to assess and quantify
in monetary terms, and that's a bad thing. She would prefer "compassionate care"
and "patient-centered partnerships."

The implication is clear: Altruism needs to play a bigger role in medicine.
Thus, healthcare is not a trade between individuals to mutual benefit, but "the
gift of life."

But bringing altruism into medicine harms patients rather than helping them. If
we allowed people to buy and sell organs in this country, we would see the
supply of available organs increase; is it more "compassionate" to allow
thousands of patients to die waiting for an organ, just to keep money out of the
equation?

If we go toward a freer market in medicine, rather than move in the direction of
price controls and government mandates for lower payments to doctors, more
bright young people will want to go to medical school; is it "compassionate" to
create a shortage of doctors, or to tell someone who has spent many years in
extensive postgraduate training that he doesn't deserve to make money just
because people need his services?

It's true that quantifying the cost-effectiveness of healthcare has caused
dissatisfaction in some ways: The insurance company decides that your doctor's
time is worth a lower amount this year than last year, so he shortens the length
of a visit and sends you off feeling as though you were rushed through the
appointment. Your policy raises the copay for prescription drugs, so your asthma
medication costs more, but delivers you no more value than it did when you were
paying less. And so on and so forth.

But such examples do not prove that altruism is the solution. They only
illustrate the problem with trying to pretend that healthcare has no monetary
cost.

When patients have to pay for their own care, they become cost-conscious: They
evaluate for themselves whether it's worth it to pay more money for a doctor who
has more time to spend with each patient, or whether the cost savings is worth a
quick visit with less time to discuss medical issues.

When a third party is introduced, the patient is insulated from the true cost of
care. He starts to want the best of everything, regardless of how much it costs
-- because his insurance company is covering the cost. The insurance company, on
the other hand, wants to reduce costs as much as possible, even if it means that
some patients are dissatisfied with their care.

Thus, instead of mutual trade to mutual benefit, we get a system nobody is happy
with.

Doctors, medical researchers, and pharmaceutical company executives do not work
for the benefit of others. They work because of the pleasure they get from
tackling the problems of human disease -- and because of the financial rewards
they stand to gain. And nobody can be expected to donate an organ to a stranger
out of brother-love alone.

The fact that there's money in medicine is not a sad fact to be lamented -- it's
the reason that we can enjoy good care.

http://reasonpharm.blogspot.com/2009/01/its-not-wrong-to-put-price-on-health.htm\
l

Don't  Our  Schools  Teach  What  Socialism  Is?

http://www.projo.com/opinion/letters/content/LT_kenner_RDY_.Bank_FQDOA6C_v4.100a\
582.html#

Socialism is something to be feared
- by Harris Kenner:

"The reason so many people are not "fooled" by "cries of
socialism" is that most people educated in today's schools have
already been fooled: They do not know what socialism is. And
from his letter, I think Mr. Smith has also been fooled.

Today we have neither capitalism nor socialism. We have a mixed
economy, a quickly perishing capitalism infected by socialism,
what Mr. Smith calls "cruel" capitalism.

In contrast, true capitalism is the system in which all property is owned and
controlled by private citizens.

Full socialism is the system in which all property is owned and controlled by
the state. Socialism achieves this by vote, whereas its big brother, communism,
achieves this by direct force.

A variation of these systems, fascism, appeals to those little
brothers who are not yet ready to openly confiscate property.
Fascists pretend that property is owned by individuals, but the
actual control of that property is in the hands of the state.

Those more wizened recognize that to own something you do not control
is to not own it at all.

<< This is particularly appropriate to those who like to prattle on_
idiotically_ about  the utopian "public- private  partnership" that will exist
when government takes over to administer and fund universal health care.....

In this imaginary scenario dreamed up by wannabe medical bureaucrats and social
planners in Never-never Land,  doctors and hospitals blithely go about their
businesses as "privately owned and operated  health care businesses" serving up
unlimited high-tech procedures made in the land of milk and honey  with no
change whatsoever in their medical-decision making, control or private ownership
of their business - with the only, completely inconsequential, invisible change
being that now the government happens to merely pay the bills....>>

And let's not forget theocracies - based on, for example, militant
Islamic or Christian fundamentalism - in which God is the stand-in
for the state.

If you have no ownership or control over the fruits of your labor,
you are a slave.

<Take note>

This is why socialism, communism, fascism and theocratic societies amount to
slavery. In essence, they all share one fundamental idea: They violate
individual rights by initiating force. You can now see how they contrast to true
capitalism.

The "fear-mongering" that Mr. Smith considers a vice is actually
the virtue of recognizing and naming socialism's true nature. We
really are going "down the road to a socialist future."

http://www.projo.com/opinion/letters/content/LT_kenner_RDY_.Bank_FQDOA6C_v4.100a\
582.html#

.....This sounds like a pretty bad deal to me....

From the ReasonPharm blog:

"Insurers Offer to  Start  Charging  Healthy  People  More"
( http://tinyurl.com/c34c87 )

That' s what I think the title of  "Insurers offer to stop charging sick people
more" ( http://tinyurl.com/dbyphb ), one of today's AP stories, should be.

Two insurance giants, America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association, have written to senators indicating that they are
willing to phase out premiums that vary by prior health history if Congress
requires all Americans to purchase coverage.

That is bad, bad news for healthy people like me.

It's key that the insurance companies are making this offer in exchange for
forcing everyone to be covered -- because that's the only way this scam will
work.

If insurers don't charge more for higher-risk people, then they simply have to
raise costs for everyone. But that would mean health insurance would be an even
worse deal for healthy individuals than it already is -- and healthy Americans
would flee. Except that they won't be allowed to, should AHIP and Blue
Cross/Blue Shield get their way.

My health insurance already costs my employer and me far more than I get out of
it in health benefits. (See my November 26, 2007 post for a more detailed
breakdown.)

If insurers trade risk-priced premiums for a universal coverage mandate, that
disparity is going to get even worse."

More:

http://reasonpharm.blogspot.com/2009/03/insurers-offer-to-start-charging.html

Mass- Producing  Massachusetts' Colossal Mistake

WSJ Opinion: National Health Preview
The Massachusetts Debacle, Coming Soon to Your Neighborhood.

"Praise Mitt Romney. Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the
inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the
White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.

It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what
President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for
everyone else.

In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic
colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans
always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.

As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and
waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance
program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.

The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or
three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a
7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.

The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!!) since
2006.

Like gamblers doubling down on their losses, Democrats have already hiked the
fines for people who don't obtain insurance under the "individual mandate,"
already increased business penalties, taxed insurers and hospitals, raised
premiums, and pumped up the state tobacco levy. That's still not enough money.

So earlier this year, Mr. Patrick appointed a state commission to figure out how
to control costs and preserve "this grand experiment."

One objective is to change the incentives for preventative care and treatments
for chronic disease, but everyone says that. It sometimes results in better
health but always more spending. So-called "pay for performance" financing
models, on the other hand, would do away with fee for service -- but they also
tend to reward process, not the better results implied.

What are the alternatives?

If health planners won't accept the prices set by the marketplace -- thus
putting themselves out of work -- the only other choice is limiting care via
politics, much as Canada and most of Europe do today.

The Patrick panel is considering one option to "exclude coverage of services of
low priority/low value." Another would "limit coverage to services that produce
the highest value when considering both clinical effectiveness and cost." (Guess
who would determine what is high or low value? Not patients or doctors.) Yet
another is "a limitation on the total amount of money available for health care
services," i.e., an overall spending cap.

The Institute for America's Future -- which is providing the intellectual
horsepower (we use the term loosely) for reforms like those in Massachusetts --
argues that the cost overruns prove the state must cap how much insurers are
allowed to charge consumers and regulate their profits. If Mr. Patrick doesn't
get there first, that is. He reportedly told insurers and hospitals at a closed
meeting this month that if they didn't take steps to hold down the rate of
medical inflation, he would.

Even the single-payer cheerleaders at the New York Times have caught on to this
rolling catastrophe.

In a page-one story this month, the paper reported on the "expedient choice"
that Mr. Romney and Democrats made to defer "until another day any serious
effort to control the state's runaway health costs. . . . Those who led the 2006
effort said it would not have been feasible to enact universal coverage if the
legislation had required heavy cost controls.

The very stakeholders who were coaxed into the tent -- doctors, hospitals,
insurers and consumer groups -- would probably have been driven into opposition
by efforts to reduce their revenues and constrain their medical practices, they
said."

Now they tell us.

What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less
expensive if everyone were covered. But reducing costs while increasing access
are irreconcilable issues.

Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand
experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts
about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional. Only 21,000 people have
used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers.

Which brings us to Washington, where Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats are
about to try their own Bay State bait and switch:

First create vast new entitlements that can never be repealed, then later take
the less popular step of rationing care when it's their last hope to save the
federal fisc.

The consequences of that deception will be far worse than those in
Massachusetts, however, given that prior to 2006 the state already had a far
smaller percentage of its population uninsured than the national average.

The real lesson of Massachusetts is that reform proponents won't tell Americans
the truth about what "universal" coverage really means: Runaway costs followed
by price controls and bureaucratic rationing."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811121310853037.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

=================================================================

For a more in-depth description and analysis of the Massachusetts Universal
Health Plan, see:

"Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America"
http://tinyurl.com/6zkcap

Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM)
http://www.westandfirm.org/index.html

No Miracle in Massachusetts
James C. Capretta, Ethics and Public Policy Center

National Review Online

"Having promised lavish subsidies for expansive health insurance, it seems state
officials in Massachusetts have finally begun to admit that their health care
reform program, passed in 2006, is unaffordable for the state's taxpayers,
writes Capretta.

There are lessons here for the unfolding debate in Washington, writes Capretta.
The Obama team is essentially pursuing the Massachusetts political strategy --
cover everybody first with a massive new entitlement program and worry about
imposing cost controls later.

But make no mistake: If President Obama succeeds, he and the Congress will be
back in a year or two or three -- when the coverage train has already left the
station -- to say the financial future of the country depends on agreeing to
government-imposed cost constraints, just as Massachusetts officials are doing
today..."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDkxYjM0YzQ5NGU4OTk2MjFjOWRkZDQ3YzVjMTl\
hNDM=

Insurers Extend Their Faustian Bargain
By Paul Hsieh, MD

Excerpt:

"Health insurance companies have offered to speed up their eventual suicide,
agreeing to yet more concessions to the government in exchange for a law
requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance.

This is just an extension of the Faustian bargain described in my earlier piece,
"Health Insurance Industry Sells Its Soul to the Devil".

Here's the latest development:

"Insurers Offer to Stop Charging Sick People More"

"The health insurance industry offered Tuesday for the first time to curb its
controversial practice of charging higher premiums to people with a history of
medical problems.

The offer from America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue
Shield Association is a potentially significant shift in the debate over
reforming the nation's health care system to rein in costs and cover an
estimated 48 million uninsured people. It was contained in a letter to key
senators.

In the letter, the two insurance industry groups said their members are willing
to "phase out the practice of varying premiums based on health status in the
individual market" if all Americans are required to get coverage.

...Insurers are trying to head off the creation of a government insurance plan
that would compete with them, something that liberals and many Democrats are
pressing for.

Of course, making more concessions to the statists will only embolden -- not
discourage -- them.

Once insurers concede the premise that the government is right to set the terms
for "universal coverage", then a taxpayer-subsidized government plan will be the
inevitable next step.

After all, if people have a "right" to insurance but the government deems
private offerings to be "unaffordable", then the government will have to step in
to allegedly rectify the situation with its own plan.

The unfair competition between a private insurance and subsidized government
insurance will not be sustainable for long.

This move by private insurers will likely speed up their own demise. One does
not fight a killer by offering to slit one's throat first.

And unless Americans speak out against this development, it won't end well..."

Entire article:

http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2009/03/insurers-extend-their-faustian-bargain.h\
tml

Comparing Health Care Outcomes: US vs. Canadian, European Systems

"Although  Sen. Edward M. Kennedy seeks universal health care, Americans enjoy
superior care to citizens of many European countries, according to Washington
Times contributor Scott Atlas."

Pardon the interruption

by Scott Atlas

COMMENTARY:

As politicians, economists, popular media and an ever increasing list of others
convincingly proclaim cures for the ills of American health care, we Americans
are subjected to a stream of opinion deriding as utterly miserable our
health-care system compared to the rest of the developed world.

Much of this chatter resonates with the public; many assume the arguments are
sound and the expertise of the presenters profound because the calls for change
are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex.

In their haste to address such serious challenges as escalating costs and the
uninsured, many economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike
are beating the drum for a far larger role for government in health care.

In this interlude between health czar nominees, and before we legislate
government as the solution and final arbiter of medical care, it may be a good
time to consider a few unheralded facts about America's health-care system. For
instance, did you know:

(1) Americans have better survival rates from both common and rare cancers than
Europeans? (Sources: Lancet Oncology, 7, No. 2 ( February 2006): 132-40;
Verdecchia et al., "Recent Cancer Survival in Europe : A 2000-02 Period Analysis
of EUROCARE-4 Data," Lancet Oncology, No. 8 (2007): 784-96.)

(2) Americans have significantly better survival rates from cancer than
Canadians? (Sources: United States Cancer Statistics, National Program of Cancer
Registries, Centers for Disease Control; Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer
Institute of Canada; also June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status,
Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.," National Bureau of Economic
Research, NBER Working Paper 13429, September 2007. Available at
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13429.)

(3) Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than
Canadians? (Source: O'Neill and O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and
Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.")

(4) Americans have better access to preventive screening for major cancers than
Canadians? (Source: O'Neill and O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and
Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.," Table 8.)

(5) A marker for inequality of access and quality of health systems, the
"health-income gradient" (i.e., that higher incomes achieve better health and
lower incomes mean worse health) for adults 16 to 64 years old reveals a more
severe disparity in Canada than in the United States? (Source: O'Neill and
O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.")

(6) In the United Kingdom and Canada, patients wait far longer than Americans
(about twice as long, sometimes even more than a year) to see a specialist, have
elective surgery like hip replacements or cataracts, or get radiation treatment
for cancer? (Sources: "Waiting Your Turn, (17th edition) Hospital Waiting Lists
In Canada"; Critical Issues Bulletin 2007; N. Esmail, Michael A. Walker MA, and
M. Bank, Studies in Health Care Policy, August 2008; N. Esmail and D. Wrona
"Medical Technology in Canada," Fraser Institute; Sharon Willcox et al.,
"Measuring and Reducing Waiting Times: A Cross-National Comparison Of
Strategies," Health Affairs 26, No. 4 (July/August 2007): 1078-87; O'Neill and
O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.," M.V.
Williams et al., "Radiotherapy Dose Fractionation, Access and Waiting Times in
the Countries of the U.K.. in 2005," Royal College of Radiologists, Clinical
Oncology 19, No. 5 (June 2007, 273-286).

(7) Sixty percent of Western Europeans say their health systems need "urgent"
reform? (Source: H. Disney et al., "Impatient for Change: European Attitudes to
Health-Care Reform;" The Stockholm Network, 2004.)

(8) More than 70 percent of Germans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and
U.K. adults (all countries in the survey except the Netherlands, with "only" 58
percent) say their health systems needs either "fundamental change" or "complete
rebuilding"? (Source: C. Schoen, R. Osborn, M. M. Doty, M. Bishop, J. Peugh, and
N. Murukutla, "Toward Higher-Performance Health Systems: Adults' Health Care
Experiences In Seven Countries, 2007," Health Affairs 26, No. 6 (2007):
w717-w734.)

(9) Although much maligned by economists and targeted by policymakers, an
overwhelming majority of America's leading physicians themselves recently listed
the computerized tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as
the most important medical innovations in improving patient care in the previous
decade? (Source: V. R. Fuchs and H. C. Sox Jr., "Physicians' Views of the
Relative Importance of 30 Medical Innovations," Health Affairs 20, No. 5 (2001):
30-42.)

(10) By any measure, the vast majority of all the innovation in health care in
the world comes out of the U.S. health-care system? (Sources: "The U.S. Health
Care System as an Engine of Innovation," in the 2008 Economic Report of the
President, Chapter 4, Economic Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of St.
Louis, Federal Reserve Archival Service for Economic Research; T. Cowen, New
York Times, Oct. 5, 2006; Coburn et al., Heritage Lecture No. 1030, April 2007;
T. Boehm, Journal of Medical Marketing 5, No. 2 (2005): 158-66; U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, July 2002.)

Let's be careful about what we believe when we listen to all those health-care
"experts" in Washington.

Scott W. Atlas. M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a
professor at the Stanford University Medical Center.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/pardon-the-interruption/

Health Insurance Industry Sells Its Soul to the Devil

-By Dr. Paul Hsieh, co-founder, Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM)

http://www.WeStandFirm.org

Summary: "Health insurance companies are on the verge of a Faustian bargain that
will take the rest of us down with them."

"In German folklore, Johann Faust was a physician who sold his soul to the Devil
in exchange for knowledge. Of course, the pact destroyed him. The American
health insurance industry is on the verge of striking its own Faustian bargain
with the U.S. government. But this bargain won't just destroy the insurance
industry; it will also drag 300 million Americans into the pit of government-run
"single payer" socialized medicine.

Sensing the changing political winds favoring "universal health care," the
largest trade group for health insurers (American Health Insurance Plans)
recently agreed to accept regulations requiring them to sell individual policies
to all patients regardless of preexisting illnesses.

In the past, they had opposed such requirements as too costly. However, they've
now agreed to accept such regulations in exchange for a law requiring all
Americans to purchase health insurance.

At first glance, this might look like a good deal for the insurance companies.
They would receive a seemingly guaranteed market for their products (as if
Congress had bailed out General Motors by requiring all Americans to purchase a
new GM car every few years.) But this guaranteed market would come at a steep
price.

A "Federal Health Board" would impose onerous political controls on insurers,
specifying which patients they must accept and which benefits they must offer.
Insurers would be required to sell policies at prices the government deemed
"affordable."

Private insurers would also have to compete with taxpayer-subsidized government
insurance plans. As health costs continued to rise, such an arrangement would
become unsustainable.

No business can survive long when the government forces it to sell $2,000 worth
of services, but only allows it to charge $1,000.

When South Dakota and Kentucky passed similar laws, many insurers left these
states rather than operate at a loss. Similar laws at the national level would
likely drive many insurers out of business altogether.

The inevitable collapse of the private insurance market would then leave
millions of Americans without insurance coverage. Although this collapse would
be caused by government regulations, pundits would undoubtedly portray this as a
"failure of the free market."

Politicians would demand that the government "rescue" health care from "greedy
capitalists." The end result would be a "single payer" socialized medical system
like Canada or Great Britain's.

However, a "single payer" system would lead to misery and death for many
Americans.  Such systems control health costs through rationing. Canadian breast
cancer patients often wait months until the government approves their surgery
and chemotherapy.

Canadian cardiac patients often die while waiting for surgery, unless they can
use political clout to "jump the queue" ahead of others (or travel to the U.S.
for care.)

Great Britain's National Health Service has paid bonuses to primary care
physicians who have reduced their referrals to hospital specialists, forcing
doctors to choose between their patients or their government paychecks.

Do Americans really want a system in which their doctors can't or won't work for
their best interests?

Health insurance companies should neither seek nor accept a Faustian bargain
that will ultimately destroy them. Instead, they should support free-market
reforms that correct the problems caused by existing government controls.

One example would be repealing "community rating" laws that force insurers to
charge the same prices for all patients in a community regardless of their
individual medical histories.

Another would be repealing "mandated benefit" laws that force insurers to offer
(and patients to purchase) unwanted benefits such as in vitro fertilization
coverage.

A third would be repealing laws that forbid patients from purchasing health
insurance across state lines.

Such reforms could reduce insurance costs over 50%, making health insurance
available to millions who cannot currently afford it.

Whether health insurance companies realize it or not, they are on the verge of
selling themselves to the Devil — and taking the rest of us down with them.
Whether we let them is up to us.

Full article:
http://tinyurl.com/cv6kej

Health Insurance Industry Sells Its Soul to the Devil

-By Dr. Paul Hsieh, co-founder, Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM)

http://www.WeStandFirm.org

Summary: "Health insurance companies are on the verge of a Faustian bargain that
will take the rest of us down with them."

"In German folklore, Johann Faust was a physician who sold his soul to the Devil
in exchange for knowledge. Of course, the pact destroyed him. The American
health insurance industry is on the verge of striking its own Faustian bargain
with the U.S. government. But this bargain won't just destroy the insurance
industry; it will also drag 300 million Americans into the pit of government-run
"single payer" socialized medicine.

Sensing the changing political winds favoring "universal health care," the
largest trade group for health insurers (American Health Insurance Plans)
recently agreed to accept regulations requiring them to sell individual policies
to all patients regardless of preexisting illnesses.

In the past, they had opposed such requirements as too costly. However, they've
now agreed to accept such regulations in exchange for a law requiring all
Americans to purchase health insurance.

At first glance, this might look like a good deal for the insurance companies.
They would receive a seemingly guaranteed market for their products (as if
Congress had bailed out General Motors by requiring all Americans to purchase a
new GM car every few years.) But this guaranteed market would come at a steep
price.

A "Federal Health Board" would impose onerous political controls on insurers,
specifying which patients they must accept and which benefits they must offer.
Insurers would be required to sell policies at prices the government deemed
"affordable."

Private insurers would also have to compete with taxpayer-subsidized government
insurance plans. As health costs continued to rise, such an arrangement would
become unsustainable.

No business can survive long when the government forces it to sell $2,000 worth
of services, but only allows it to charge $1,000.

When South Dakota and Kentucky passed similar laws, many insurers left these
states rather than operate at a loss. Similar laws at the national level would
likely drive many insurers out of business altogether.

The inevitable collapse of the private insurance market would then leave
millions of Americans without insurance coverage. Although this collapse would
be caused by government regulations, pundits would undoubtedly portray this as a
"failure of the free market."

Politicians would demand that the government "rescue" health care from "greedy
capitalists." The end result would be a "single payer" socialized medical system
like Canada or Great Britain's.

However, a "single payer" system would lead to misery and death for many
Americans.  Such systems control health costs through rationing. Canadian breast
cancer patients often wait months until the government approves their surgery
and chemotherapy.

Canadian cardiac patients often die while waiting for surgery, unless they can
use political clout to "jump the queue" ahead of others (or travel to the U.S.
for care.)

Great Britain's National Health Service has paid bonuses to primary care
physicians who have reduced their referrals to hospital specialists, forcing
doctors to choose between their patients or their government paychecks.

Do Americans really want a system in which their doctors can't or won't work for
their best interests?

Health insurance companies should neither seek nor accept a Faustian bargain
that will ultimately destroy them. Instead, they should support free-market
reforms that correct the problems caused by existing government controls.

One example would be repealing "community rating" laws that force insurers to
charge the same prices for all patients in a community regardless of their
individual medical histories.

Another would be repealing "mandated benefit" laws that force insurers to offer
(and patients to purchase) unwanted benefits such as in vitro fertilization
coverage.

A third would be repealing laws that forbid patients from purchasing health
insurance across state lines.

Such reforms could reduce insurance costs over 50%, making health insurance
available to millions who cannot currently afford it.

Whether health insurance companies realize it or not, they are on the verge of
selling themselves to the Devil — and taking the rest of us down with them.
Whether we let them is up to us.

Full article:
http://tinyurl.com/cv6kej

Book Recommendation: "Why Health Care Costs So Much: The Solution- Consumers"

by Evan Madianos, MD

"Why Health Care Costs So Much: The Solution- Consumers" by Dave Racer & Greg
Dattilo

http://www.alethospress.com/howmuch.htm

is easy-to-read, common sense consumer guide that brings order to the chaos of
the US health care system and what is wrong with the way we purchase health care
goods and services in the US.

This short booklet brings into perspective the issue of why health care costs so
much - and is rising rapidly. It is chock full of  simple, common-sense,
easy-to-understand analogies and examples. The analogies are somewhat comedic at
times and make the complicated and arcane details of the US health care delivery
system accessible to a normal patient of average intelligence.

It is written at a level and in such a way that any intellectually  honest and
curious person armed  only with common sense and a high school education- could
easily understand the application of the concepts to their life and how they
_personally_ need to change the way they think about health care services and
behavior in the medical marketplace in order to fix the problems that government
has created.

I highly recommend it as "required reading" for any doctor or patient who is
seriously interested in looking past the partisan rhetoric of ideologues looking
to push "pie-in-the-sky" solutions and are looking for a first- hand
understanding of the actual cost-drivers behind sky-rocketing health care
utilization and expenditures in the US.

I have found that even those who are mildly supportive or "on-the-fence" about
government solutions to the crisis of health care costs have agreed that the
book accurately depicts the prevailing  financially unsound and economically
unsustainable attitudes and  economic behavior of health care consumers  and
providers alike which are at the root of rising health care costs.

The booklet gives great practical advice on what every individual patient can do
to change the health care purchasing attitudes and behavior-  before government
takes their health care choices and money right out of their hands and pocket."

A couple excerpts are online here:

Chapter 5: PREPAID HEALTH CARE:
"How today's health care is like a dinner buffet"

http://www.alethospress.com/images/CHAP5%20EX.pdf

and here:

Chapter 6 HOW TO BE A HEALTH CARE CONSUMER
"How much for that Stress Test? "

http://www.alethospress.com/images/CHAP6%20EX.pdf

The booklet's bottom-line: Consumers and providers alike change their attitudes,
perceptions and purchasing / consuming behavior in predictable and unhealthy
ways when they are buying a good or service- any good or service- whether a
vital need or a luxury item- with other people's money (OPM).

Furthermore, it doesn't actually matter whether it is OPM obtained through the
government directly, or OPM collected and re-distributed by a private or
quasi-governmental 3rd party payer corporate entity  guaranteeing "unlimited
expensive high-tech services for all, for  the same initially-
fixed-and-ever-rising price".

The unrestricted demand for expensive services which are misperceived as "free" 
or "cheap" by the health care consumer paying only a small fractional  "co-pay" 
for the service causes health care providers to ramp up their production of the
expensive high tech services the consumers demand, since the consumer demands it
and the providers  gets paid for it regardless of the actual total price.

The unavoidable end-result, if the irrational attitudes and behavior are left
unchallenged and unchanged,  is continually sky-rocketing, wasteful  health care
expenditures, and matching  increases in health care premiums which threaten to
break employer, family and state budgets, and restricted choices of lower cost
and quality services,  until  government finally steps in to regulate price,
quality, availability, access, for all – to the detriment of health care
quality, availability, and choice - and doctors and patients alike.

I'd like to add that this same exact economic phenomenon is described in great
detail utilizing a "right to hair cuts/ hair care" as a government- guaranteed
service- with the same predictable outcome. This analogy  is included in a
lecture entitled "Health Care is Not a Right" written in 1994, at the time of
the failed Clinton health care grab.

The whole article is available online in written form here:
http://www.westandfirm.org/Peikoff-01.html

and in online streaming video form here:
http://www.afcm.org

The Misnomer of "Insurance"

- by Edward R. Annis M.D, past president of the AMA

Excerpt:

"There are laws against the mislabeling of products to hide their real
ingredients or to claim the presence of a component that is lacking.

But which is the worse disservice to Americans? The mislabeling of products
manufactured for sale, or the misrepresentation of ideas or political actions?

Millions have been led to believe that programs such as Social Security and
Medicare are insurance simply because they are called .social insurance..Even
though the Medicare Part A card is labeled "Health Insurance"  the United States
Supreme Court held long ago that Medicare is not insurance, but rather a tax on
one segment of the population to pay the bills for another segment. In other
words, it is a tax on workers to pay the medical bills of retirees.

Similarly, Social Security is a tax on today's wages to pay a pension to those
retired at age 65, or even at age 62. No insurance contract exists for either of
these programs, and no Social Security or Medicare funds are banked for
investment and growth. In the early 1940s until the government's intrusion into
medicine by Medicare in 1965, private medical insurance was expanding rapidly.

In 1965, 7.7 million of the 16 millionAmericans then over the age of 65 were
covered by private medical insurance. That insurance, like home owner's
insurance, car insurance, and life insurance, enabled policy holders to share
the risks of catastrophic or unexpected needs.Insurance was not only readily
available but also reasonable in cost because it was utilized only by those
faced with costly services in cases of serious illness or accident. In order to
be insured, the risks had to be unpredictable.

Before government interfered, costly medical and surgical needs were rarely
experienced by more than 5 to 6 percent of the public in any one year. Contrast
the situation today, when insurance is expected to cover all minor aches and
pains and to cover federal or state mandates for coverage that is neither needed
nor desired...."

The above excerpt is from a longer article entitled:
"Toward Socialized Medicine (Part II): Fighting the Leviathan"

Full essay here:
http://www.jpands.org/vol8no1/annis.pdf

The Misnomer of "Insurance"

- by Edward R. Annis M.D, past president of the AMA

Excerpt:

"There are laws against the mislabeling of products to hide their real
ingredients or to claim the presence of a component that is lacking.

But which is the worse disservice to Americans? The mislabeling of products
manufactured for sale, or the misrepresentation of ideas or political actions?

Millions have been led to believe that programs such as Social Security and
Medicare are insurance simply because they are called .social insurance..Even
though the Medicare Part A card is labeled "Health Insurance"  the United States
Supreme Court held long ago that Medicare is not insurance, but rather a tax on
one segment of the population to pay the bills for another segment. In other
words, it is a tax on workers to pay the medical bills of retirees.

Similarly, Social Security is a tax on today's wages to pay a pension to those
retired at age 65, or even at age 62. No insurance contract exists for either of
these programs, and no Social Security or Medicare funds are banked for
investment and growth. In the early 1940s until the government's intrusion into
medicine by Medicare in 1965, private medical insurance was expanding rapidly.

In 1965, 7.7 million of the 16 millionAmericans then over the age of 65 were
covered by private medical insurance. That insurance, like home owner's
insurance, car insurance, and life insurance, enabled policy holders to share
the risks of catastrophic or unexpected needs.Insurance was not only readily
available but also reasonable in cost because it was utilized only by those
faced with costly services in cases of serious illness or accident. In order to
be insured, the risks had to be unpredictable.

Before government interfered, costly medical and surgical needs were rarely
experienced by more than 5 to 6 percent of the public in any one year. Contrast
the situation today, when insurance is expected to cover all minor aches and
pains and to cover federal or state mandates for coverage that is neither needed
nor desired...."

The above excerpt is from a longer article entitled:
"Toward Socialized Medicine (Part II): Fighting the Leviathan"

Full essay here:
http://www.jpands.org/vol8no1/annis.pdf

Sky-Rocketing  Cost of  Massachusetts'  Universal Health Care: Wrong for America

Unable to contain the massive health care spending increases and budget
short-falls from its Universal health care program, Massachusetts plans for the
next step: killing the goose that lays the golden egg by further cutting
reimbursements to hospitals and health care providers and rationing care to
patients.

Massachusetts Faces Costs of Big Health Care Plan
NY Times March 16, 2009

“Three years ago, Massachusetts enacted perhaps the boldest state health care
experiment in American history, bringing near-universal coverage to the
commonwealth with Paul Revere speed.

To make it happen, Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, made
an expedient choice, deferring until another day any serious effort to control
the state’s runaway health costs.

The day of reckoning has arrived. Threatened first by rapid early enrollment in
its new subsidized insurance program and now by a withering economy, the state’s
pioneering overhaul has entered a second, more challenging phase.

Thanks to new taxes and fees imposed last year, the health plan’s jittery
finances have stabilized for the moment. But government and industry officials
agree that the plan will not be sustainable over the next 5 to 10 years if they
do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending….

Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University, has calculated
that health spending per person in Massachusetts increased faster than the
national average in seven of the last eight years. Furthermore, he said, the gap
has grown exponentially, with Massachusetts now spending about a third more per
person, up from 23 percent in 1980. ..

In its first full year of operation, Commonwealth Care drew higher enrollment
than anticipated, and the state found itself facing an inaugural budget gap. Mr.
Patrick and the legislature filled it by assessing insurers and hospitals,
raising the penalty on noncompliant businesses, increasing premiums and
co-payments for consumers, and raising the state tobacco tax….

Some health policy experts argue that changes in payment practices will not be
enough to slow the growth in spending, even when combined with other
cost-cutting strategies. To truly change course, they say, the state and federal
governments may need to place actual limits on health spending, which could lead
to rationing of care… "

Full article:

http://tinyurl.com/cfdtpc

For a more in depth look at the Massachusetts plan see the below article:



Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America

By Dr. Paul Hsieh, MD

“In April 2006, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to require
that all of its residents purchase health insurance. This mandatory insurance
was the centerpiece of a “universal” health care law hailed by analysts as an
“innovative bipartisan plan….

The Massachusetts plan was, in part, a response to today’s health care costs,
which are rising twice as fast as inflation, making insurance increasingly
unaffordable for many employers and individuals. Currently, approximately 47
million Americans have no health insurance.

In an effort to solve the problem in their corner of the country, Governor
Romney and the Massachusetts state legislature enacted this plan with the twin
goals of reducing the cost of health care and guaranteeing coverage for all
Massachusetts residents….

Yet two years after its inception, the Massachusetts plan has failed to achieve
either of its goals. The plan did not lower health care costs, nor did it
achieve universal coverage.

Thus, given the growing popularity of mandatory health insurance, Americans
would do well to take a close look at the results of the Massachusetts plan—and,
more importantly, at the reasons for those results. Let us look first at the
results.

The Results in Massachusetts

Although advocates of the Massachusetts plan claimed that it would lower health
care costs and achieve universal coverage, it has done neither.

Instead, the plan has increased costs for individuals and the state, reduced
revenues for doctors and hospitals, and left Massachusetts officials in the
awkward position of having to admit that their “universal coverage is not likely
to be universal any time soon.”

Costs have risen for individuals because, under this plan, as under any
mandatory insurance scheme, the government must define what constitutes an
acceptable insurance policy.

As a result, special interest groups have been given both the incentive and the
means to lobby politicians to include their pet benefits as part of the
government-approved plan.

Consequently, the state government requires all patients to purchase “benefits”
that are useless to many of them—benefits they would never voluntarily choose to
purchase in a free market.

For example, Massachusetts currently requires insurance plans to include
forty-three mandatory benefits, including in vitro fertilization, blood lead
poisoning treatment, and chiropractor services—whether or not customers want
them.

Residents must purchase alcoholism therapy benefits, even if they are
teetotalers. These mandated benefits have raised the costs of health insurance
in Massachusetts by 23 to 56 percent.

Costs to the state government have skyrocketed and are projected to run hundreds
of millions of dollars over budget.Because the mandated insurance is so
expensive, the government has had to subsidize the costs of the premiums not
only for lower-income residents, but also for residents with incomes as high as
$60,000 for a family of four—which is three times the Federal Poverty Level.

The state had expected a “significant drop in spending . . . for the uninsured”
but has since acknowledged that this “is not going to happen to any large extent
in 2009.”

  Instead, overall costs to the state have risen by more than $400 million, 85
percent more than originally projected.

Because of its own rising costs, the state government has cut payments to
doctors and hospitals. According to family physician Dr. Katherine Atkinson, the
state insurance reimbursements often do not cover her expenses: “[E]very time I
have a Medicaid patient it’s like handing them a $20 bill when they leave.”

As a result of these rising costs and falling revenues, access to medical care
has dwindled for many patients. Fewer doctors are willing to take on new
patients for fear of losing even more money. Lee Sampson, a 47-year old medical
transcriptionist, had to call fifty doctors’ offices before she could find one
that would take her as a new patient.

Tamar Lewis, a 24-year old hair stylist, called more than two dozen primary care
doctors for a checkup. All of them turned her down, leaving her with no choice
but to rely on the community free clinic.22 Patients face long waits for basic
medical care—in some cases more than a year for a routine physical exam.

  These long waits are not due to a shortage of doctors. As the New England
Journal of Medicine notes, Massachusetts “has the highest
physician-to-population ratio of any state, in primary care as well as overall.”

The waits are due to a government policy that discourages physicians from seeing
patients—a policy under which seeing patients can mean that physicians lose
rather than make money.

Advocates of the plan often claim that the program has succeeded because it has
decreased the number of uninsured patients.25 In so doing, however, they commit
the common error of conflating insurance “coverage” with medical care. The
government can make endless promises of theoretical “coverage,” but this is not
the same thing as guaranteeing actual health care.

As Dr. H. Carroll Eastman, medical director of the Joseph M. Smith Community
Health Center, confirms: “[W]e don’t have more doctors, but we have lots more
patients”—and the new patients have to wait two to three months for an
appointment.26 These patients know the difference between “coverage” and care….


Full article:

http://tinyurl.com/6zkcap

More articles like this:

http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/index.html

Unable to contain the massive health care spending increases and budget
short-falls from its Universal health care program, Massachusetts plans for the
next step: killing the goose that lays the golden egg by further cutting
reimbursements to hospitals and health care providers and rationing care to
patients.

Massachusetts Faces Costs of Big Health Care Plan
NY Times March 16, 2009

"Three years ago, Massachusetts enacted perhaps the boldest state health care
experiment in American history, bringing near-universal coverage to the
commonwealth with Paul Revere speed.

To make it happen, Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, made
an expedient choice, deferring until another day any serious effort to control
the state's runaway health costs.

The day of reckoning has arrived. Threatened first by rapid early enrollment in
its new subsidized insurance program and now by a withering economy, the state's
pioneering overhaul has entered a second, more challenging phase.

Thanks to new taxes and fees imposed last year, the health plan's jittery
finances have stabilized for the moment. But government and industry officials
agree that the plan will not be sustainable over the next 5 to 10 years if they
do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending….

Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University, has calculated
that health spending per person in Massachusetts increased faster than the
national average in seven of the last eight years. Furthermore, he said, the gap
has grown exponentially, with Massachusetts now spending about a third more per
person, up from 23 percent in 1980. ..

In its first full year of operation, Commonwealth Care drew higher enrollment
than anticipated, and the state found itself facing an inaugural budget gap. Mr.
Patrick and the legislature filled it by assessing insurers and hospitals,
raising the penalty on noncompliant businesses, increasing premiums and
co-payments for consumers, and raising the state tobacco tax….

Some health policy experts argue that changes in payment practices will not be
enough to slow the growth in spending, even when combined with other
cost-cutting strategies. To truly change course, they say, the state and federal
governments may need to place actual limits on health spending, which could lead
to rationing of care… "

Full article:

http://tinyurl.com/cfdtpc

For a more in depth look at the Massachusetts plan see the below article:



Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America

By Dr. Paul Hsieh, MD

"In April 2006, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to require
that all of its residents purchase health insurance. This mandatory insurance
was the centerpiece of a "universal" health care law hailed by analysts as an
"innovative bipartisan plan….

The Massachusetts plan was, in part, a response to today's health care costs,
which are rising twice as fast as inflation, making insurance increasingly
unaffordable for many employers and individuals. Currently, approximately 47
million Americans have no health insurance.

In an effort to solve the problem in their corner of the country, Governor
Romney and the Massachusetts state legislature enacted this plan with the twin
goals of reducing the cost of health care and guaranteeing coverage for all
Massachusetts residents….

Yet two years after its inception, the Massachusetts plan has failed to achieve
either of its goals. The plan did not lower health care costs, nor did it
achieve universal coverage.

Thus, given the growing popularity of mandatory health insurance, Americans
would do well to take a close look at the results of the Massachusetts plan—and,
more importantly, at the reasons for those results. Let us look first at the
results.

The Results in Massachusetts

Although advocates of the Massachusetts plan claimed that it would lower health
care costs and achieve universal coverage, it has done neither.

Instead, the plan has increased costs for individuals and the state, reduced
revenues for doctors and hospitals, and left Massachusetts officials in the
awkward position of having to admit that their "universal coverage is not likely
to be universal any time soon."

Costs have risen for individuals because, under this plan, as under any
mandatory insurance scheme, the government must define what constitutes an
acceptable insurance policy.

As a result, special interest groups have been given both the incentive and the
means to lobby politicians to include their pet benefits as part of the
government-approved plan.

Consequently, the state government requires all patients to purchase "benefits"
that are useless to many of them—benefits they would never voluntarily choose to
purchase in a free market.

For example, Massachusetts currently requires insurance plans to include
forty-three mandatory benefits, including in vitro fertilization, blood lead
poisoning treatment, and chiropractor services—whether or not customers want
them.

Residents must purchase alcoholism therapy benefits, even if they are
teetotalers. These mandated benefits have raised the costs of health insurance
in Massachusetts by 23 to 56 percent.

Costs to the state government have skyrocketed and are projected to run hundreds
of millions of dollars over budget.Because the mandated insurance is so
expensive, the government has had to subsidize the costs of the premiums not
only for lower-income residents, but also for residents with incomes as high as
$60,000 for a family of four—which is three times the Federal Poverty Level.

The state had expected a "significant drop in spending . . . for the uninsured"
but has since acknowledged that this "is not going to happen to any large extent
in 2009."

  Instead, overall costs to the state have risen by more than $400 million, 85
percent more than originally projected.

Because of its own rising costs, the state government has cut payments to
doctors and hospitals. According to family physician Dr. Katherine Atkinson, the
state insurance reimbursements often do not cover her expenses: "[E]very time I
have a Medicaid patient it's like handing them a $20 bill when they leave."

As a result of these rising costs and falling revenues, access to medical care
has dwindled for many patients. Fewer doctors are willing to take on new
patients for fear of losing even more money. Lee Sampson, a 47-year old medical
transcriptionist, had to call fifty doctors' offices before she could find one
that would take her as a new patient.

Tamar Lewis, a 24-year old hair stylist, called more than two dozen primary care
doctors for a checkup. All of them turned her down, leaving her with no choice
but to rely on the community free clinic.22 Patients face long waits for basic
medical care—in some cases more than a year for a routine physical exam.

  These long waits are not due to a shortage of doctors. As the New England
Journal of Medicine notes, Massachusetts "has the highest
physician-to-population ratio of any state, in primary care as well as overall."

The waits are due to a government policy that discourages physicians from seeing
patients—a policy under which seeing patients can mean that physicians lose
rather than make money.

Advocates of the plan often claim that the program has succeeded because it has
decreased the number of uninsured patients.25 In so doing, however, they commit
the common error of conflating insurance "coverage" with medical care. The
government can make endless promises of theoretical "coverage," but this is not
the same thing as guaranteeing actual health care.

As Dr. H. Carroll Eastman, medical director of the Joseph M. Smith Community
Health Center, confirms: "[W]e don't have more doctors, but we have lots more
patients"—and the new patients have to wait two to three months for an
appointment.26 These patients know the difference between "coverage" and care….


Full article:

http://tinyurl.com/6zkcap

More articles like this:

http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/index.html

Obama's Socialist "Reforms" for American Healthcare are Impractical and Immoral
- by Ron Pisaturo

Summary:

"There's no such thing as a 'right' to force others to provide one with health
care, cotton picking, sex, or any other service."


Full article:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5458

==================================================================

"Using the power of government to _confiscate and collect_ money that is earned
and owned by private citizens, put it all in a pot, and then literally _force_
some individuals to either provide - or to pay for- the medical services of
others (ie "universal health care") is not only impractical ( witness the
rationing of services and waiting lists of every socialized medical system in
the world ) but highly _immoral_.

Speaking as an ordinary doctor and an ordinary citizen, this is an
_extraordinary_ abuse of power by the goverment and gross violation of
individual rights.

For more of an elaboration of these concepts, see the beloe essay which presents
a compelling argument that:

".... the current crisis in American health care is the result of decades of
government interference and violations of individual rights in health insurance
and medicine.

The only moral and practical solution to the problem is _not_ more government
controls but instead to gradually and systematically transition to a
rights-respecting, fully free market in those industries.

Moral Health Care vs. "Universal Health Care"
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health\
-care.asp

Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America
http://tinyurl.com/6zkcap

Health Care is Not a Right
http://tinyurl.com/42xgey

====================================================================

For more info see the below site:

Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine
www.WeStandFirm.org

- courtesy of Dr. Paul Hsieh, MD,
co_founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

http://www.WeStandFirm.org

"Bruce Kesler lists the Top Ten Specious Premises for ObamaCare. Each of these
is described in greater detail in the full post:

1. Comparing US Health Care To Other Developed Countries

2. US Health Care Spending Is More Than We Can Afford

3. Reform Overhaul Will Yield Major Savings

4. Increased Evidence-Based Medicine And Health Information Technology Will
Significantly Improve Care and Reduce Costs

5. Present Administrative Costs And Insurer Profits Are Too High

6. US Consumer Dissatisfaction Requires Drastic Health Care Changes

7. Health Care Costs Are So High They Are A Major Cause Of Personal Bankruptcy

8. The Number Of Uninsured Is So Large That Drastic Health Care Changes Are
Necessary

9. More Preventive Care Will Better Serve Consumers And Save Costs

10. Health Care Consumers Are Being Served By Drastic Health Care Changes
Read the whole thing.

This is another good economic analysis of the issues that will be front-page
issues soon.

http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2009/03/kesler-top-ten-specious-premises-for.htm\
l

"No 'Constitutional Right' to Health Care"

To the Editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"Rep. John Conyers is right. There's no more reason to link health insurance to
employment than there would be to link car or home-owner's insurance, and the
consequences are only bad. ( "At Jefferson, Conyers backs Obama health stand")

http://tinyurl.com/d4ktoo

The individual's choice of insurance plans is thus limited to those few options
offered by his employer, and he is frequently forced to stay at a job for fear
of losing his insurance.

Far better would be to revise the tax code to give the employee and the
self-employed the same tax break his or her employer currently enjoys, and thus,
more options to purchase, and out right own, his or her own plan- divorced from
a particular job.

However, Rep.Conyers is wrong when he says that an individual has a
constitutional or moral "right" to health care services.

A "right" refers to an individual's freedom of action – to produce or trade for
the needs, wants and values his or her life requires.

It is not an automatic entitlement to a good or service produced by other
people, whether it is a luxury item like a yacht, or a basic need like food or
shelter.

An individual has the "right" to work to earn his or her food and shelter- not
to take his neighbor's dinner or home without his permission. Doing so only
violates his neighbor's right to his own life and property.

Likewise, an individual has a "right" to medical services that he or she
purchases, is given voluntarily, or that others have entered into a legal
contract to provide or buy for him.

There is no "right", however, to force one's neighbor to pay for one's
appendectomy or tummy tuck. Nor do individuals have a "right" to force their
doctor – either with a gun, or through the power of government- to give such
services to them for free, bargain basement cost, or on any terms that are not
mutually and voluntarily agreed upon.

You can "do it" - but not without violating the rights of doctors."

Pennsylvania Supporter of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM)

http://www.WeStandFirm.org

On Facebook:

http://tinyurl.com/c479fj

Car Maintenance `Insurance': Have I gotta deal for you!- Part 2 /2
By Evan Madianos, MD

"Hi again! I see you came back to re-new that _great_ pre-paid car maintenance
contract -uh... I mean "insurance"...  policy I sold you last year! Fantastic!
Let's get to work!

Let's see….looking over my numbers and business from last year,  I had to
recalculate things a bit. Believe it or not, it turns out that more people than
I counted on actually ended up using my great new "insurance" policy  to buy 4
new SuperCar tires last year…some bought 2 sets even….and changed their oil
every month last year….so I lost a little money….on a lot of my policy
holders…..and I have to adjust things a little bit, but I _still_ have a great
offer for you:

Your policy now costs $999 /year and entitles you to one set of tires / year and
one $40 oil change every 6 months, and you have to purchase your tires and
maintenance from my Special Preferred Network of Discount Car Buddies I set up
in the state  - who agreed to give me a special discounted price on your
services for guaranteed business. You're _still_ getting well over $1, 600 of
goodies for _less than_ $1,000 ! (ok…$1 less…) Great deal, right ? Sold ! See
you next year1

The following year's pitch:  "Great! Glad to see you're back! Had to adjust
things _ever so slightly_ again  this year……Believe it or not, it turns out that
I still lost a lot of money from policy-holders buying more goods and services
than their premiums brought in….

It also appears that quite a few of the independent tire businesses in the area
went belly-up because they lost customers to me and couldn' t afford to sell
their tires at the deep discounted prices I "negotiated" with them……

Also- minor complication-  it would appear that the remaining ones banded
together into a huge networks themselves – called Mr. Cheap Tires SuperNetwork-
to prevent hemorrhaging customers and cash to my discounts…and they don' t offer
quite the selection they did last year, and  the prices of tires crept up a bit
as well …..and there are less places to buy them…and less choices available
…..but _this _ year, I' m _still_ giving you a _great _ deal:

The cost of my policy is now _still_ only $1,599 extra- but that gets _you_, my
value-driven customer, - not one, bit "2"  tires plus one oil change every year!
So now, you can go to any branch you want of huge Mr. Cheap Tires (..which
actually happens , by _pure_  co-incidence, to be the only Mega- tire store
chain in the state left…) and , you can buy not one- but 2! – of their cheap new
tires _every year_ – first for the front, then for the back the following year! 
Sound good?

I have to mention though, that the SuperCar tires you bought in previous years
are not covered ( being as they now cost $1,500/ tire) and you are _ only_
allowed to get their Mr. Cheap Tire "Special" – which is currently priced at
$900 / tire…..and rising quickly …..so you're still making out like a bandit!
And the yearly  oil change- which is now priced at  $100 -  is _still_ thrown in
_for free_!! Good deal? Thank you for your business!

Wow…this is working out great for me…let's see how I can expand my business….I
know!

Healthy people waste a _TON_ of money on health " insurance" giving their money
to companies to insure them against the possibility of having to pay possibly
exorbitant, bankrupting medical expenses  "in the event of"  some unforeseen
catastrophic major medical or major surgical event or hospitalization in the
future.

If you're healthy though, you get _nothing back _ for that premium money, It's
money down the drain!

I got a great idea: I'm going to offer you a policy that covers that PLUS
_unlimited _pre-payment_ for all of the high tech, expensive diagnostic medical
tests and procedures for screening  and routine health maintenance that your
heart ( ….and brain….and colon…and breast…. and lungs….and back…and every joint
in your body….on either side….) could possibly need or desire -  and that you
could consume in one year – all for one low price! ( …at least this year...)

Is it a deal ?  No ?? But why not??

Oh….I see….. you already HAVE one like that
Someone already came up with THAT idea one years ago…
BTW….How's that working out, anyway?"

================

For more on the issue why health care costs so much, read the little booklet
entitled "Why Health Care Costs So Much: The Solution- Consumers", introduction 
here:

" You are hearing that the United States health care system is in a crisis, if
not terminally ill. This book shows you how to heal it. This book is about
understanding why health care costs so much, and how you have the power to
change it. ...

In our first book, Your Health Matters: What you need to know about U.S. health
care,1 we wrote how the U.S. health system is unique in the world.  We showed
that the U.S. has the world's most advanced and expensive health care. The U.S.
is unique in that we provide access to care for every conceivable type of health
problem for all U.S. residents....

This book explains why health care costs so much, and then it shows how you are
the solution. You might say this book will make you healthier and wealthier…"

http://www.alethospress.com/images/Chap1Ex.pdf

For more on the issue of "Prepaid Health Maintenance Care" , and how it differs
from " insurance"  read the excerpt from Chapter 5 here:

http://www.alethospress.com/images/CHAP5%20EX.pdf

=========================

Evan Madianos, MD is a practicing radiologist in Pennsylvania and Supporter of
Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) here:

www.WeStandFirm.org

Join Pennsylvania Supporters of FIRM on Facebook here:
http://tinyurl.com/am4k8z

===========================

Purchase information to buy a single copy, or in bulk at steep discounts for
distribution to patients and other doctors:

http://www.alethospress.com/howmuch.htm

"Car Maintenance `Insurance': Have I gotta deal for you! - Part I /2 "

By Evan Madianos, MD

I just had this great idea:

"Here I am, a pretty safe driver……I haven't had a car accident for _years_  Yet,
I `m dumping $1, 000 / year into the coffers of some auto "insurance" company- 
for what?

Reading the policy the other day, it says " to prevent me from declaring
personal bankruptcy by contractually agreeing to  pay up to the maximum value of
the policy ((minus the deductible ) for the huge expenses related to medical
bills and personal injuries related to the drivers, repair of the damaged
vehicles, car rental, etc `in the event of" an accident.

Here I am- stupid me - a very safe driver who hasn't had an accident in 10 years
and I'm pouring  $1,000 down the drain for some insurance company  to  prevent
me from having to pay some "non-existent" – or at least, unlikely, huge 
expenses in the future  _in case_ I have an accident?

No accident – and nothing to show for it. What a con game! I 'll bet a lot of
you out there are similarly getting "taken for a ride" by the auto insurance
industry.

That's' when  I had my great idea: If you are a safe driver like me, and feel
like you're not getting any value in return for your auto insurance premiums, I
want to _change_ that for you. I want to _change_ the way you-  the safe,
responsible  driver, and hard-working middle-class American with bills to pay,
children to support, hopes and dreams for your future -  buy _your_ auto
insurance.

This time we're going to do it right. I' m going to sell you a auto "insurance" 
policy that _not only_ covers your medical and repair expenses "in the event of"
that accident that you'll never have - if you're lucky, but _also_ allows you to
buy tires, windshield wipers, and oil changes you _want and need_ every year!
All for the same _low_price!

Well…actually the price is technically  a _little_ higher  than your current
policy- maybe $500 more - great low introductory offer!  But think of all the
great _extra_things you're getting for your money! New tires every year-
whatever brand you want- new windshield wipers….$20 oil changes every 5,000 or
,3,000….heck- every  _1,000 miles! Why not? It' s all included in that same low
fixed price!

Isn't that a _great_deal ?  Isn' t that all a necessary part of  being a safe, 
responsible driver?

Remember those great "Goodyear Eagle Supercar" tires you saw in the store? $400
a pop? They're all yours – four of them, a $1,600 value- every year for that
same _low_ extra $400 / year if you buy my policy! Pretty good deal, eh?

( Of course, in order to make money I `m banking on the hope  that only maybe
_1/4_ of you and my other new policy-holders will actually know- and take
advantage of this little option, but let's make that a little secret  between
you and me…)

So you like it? Great! Sold!. See you next year !"

For more on the issue why health care costs so much, read the little booklet
entitled "Why Health Care Costs So Much: The Solution- Consumers", introduction 
here:

You are hearing that the United States health care system is in a crisis, if not
terminally ill. This book shows you how to heal it. This book is about
understanding why health care costs so much, and how you have the power to
change it. ...

In our first book, Your Health Matters: What you need to know about U.S. health
care,1 we wrote how the U.S. health system is unique in the world.  We showed
that the U.S. has the world's most advanced and expensive health care. The U.S.
is unique in that we provide access to care for every conceivable type of health
problem for all U.S. residents....

This book explains why health care costs so much, and then it shows how you are
the solution. You might say this book will make you healthier and wealthier…"

http://www.alethospress.com/images/Chap1Ex.pdf

For more on the issue of "Prepaid Health Maintenance Care" , and how it differs
from " insurance"  read the excerpt from Chapter 5 here:

http://www.alethospress.com/images/CHAP5%20EX.pdf

=========================

Evan Madianos, MD is a practicing radiologist in Pennsylvania and Supporter of
Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) here:
www.WeStandFirm.org

Join Pennsylvania Supporters of FIRM on Facebook here:
http://tinyurl.com/am4k8z

===========================

Purchase information to buy a single copy, or in bulk at steep discounts for
distribution to patients and other doctors:

http://www.alethospress.com/howmuch.htm

What does it mean to  "Go  Galt" ?

A fictional US society totters on the brink of economic , cultural and  social
collapse in  Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand 's magnum opus of romantic fiction.

Increasingly concerned, though baffled citizens wrack their brains trying to
identify and stop the mysterious figure and forces threatening to destroy their
society before it is too late, as  signified by their quest for the  answer to
the elusive question:  "who is John Galt?".

The answer stuns them - and forces them to re-think their most basic and
personal philosophic and political premises if they want to prevent their
society from collapsing.

A short answer to the question, "Who is John Galt?", comes from the novel
itself:

  "John Galt is Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by
vultures in payment for having brought to men the fire of the gods, he broke his
chains and he withdrew his fire - until the day when men withdraw their
vultures."

In medicine today,  doctors and other health care providers increasingly labor
harder and longer for less personal reward to bring  life-preserving and life-
saving technology and services to patients .

Despite their valiant and vital efforts and role, they find themselves
increasingly bound and shackled by government and quasi-governmental 3rd party
payer regulators  who penalize and vilify them for their efforts and torture
them with  medical malpractice tools of  legalized extortion-  even while
continually draining them of personal financial and spritiual rewards for
offering  their life-giving services  to patients and society.

Short  video clip of  Michelle Malkin describing  what it means to  "Go Galt":

http://tinyurl.com/d3vzu3

Obama Seeks 'Cure for Cancer' -- By Stamping Out Freedom
- Ron Pisaturo

Excerpt:

"...In his address before a joint session of Congress last night, Obama dictated
his plan for America, to be financed and "serviced" by productive Americans.
Obama will take from individuals the wealth that they created and needed for
their own plans. The dictator's plan comes first....

Obama: "The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year,
yet we keep delaying reform."

"When I was a child in New York City in the early 1960s, a doctor visit cost $2,
and a house call cost $5.

That was just before Medicare and Medicaid, and before an avalanche of
outlandish malpractice awards, and before government dictated what services must
be covered by health insurance policies, and before a litany of government
regulations that consume more than half of the average doctor's time.

Medicine is already mostly socialized. .."

Full article:

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5448

Video Clip: DRUGS ARE AWESOME!! Socialized Healthcare Sucks.

Comedian from Canada yucking it up over the "vast abundance" of dugs
and services available in that dream-like  utopia of Canadian
socialized medicine celebrated by American liberals, politicians and
mainstream media....

So funny you'll laugh to death....unless we import it  to America...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdARfegZDns&feature=channel

Ijust set up a new Facebook group for Pennsylvania supporters of the
national organization "Americans for Free Choice in Medicine" (AFCM)

http://www.afcm.org

For those still unfamiliar with Facebook, this social networking site
is a *great* way to recruit doctors, patients, the general public to
become suuporters of  health care reform and other causes.

Join the Pennsylvania Supporters of Americans for Free Choice in
Medicine Facebook group, help spread the word, and help lay the
fouondation for the "Health Care Tea Party" down the road!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?drop&ref=mb#/group.php?gid=131896655172

Pennsylvania Supporters of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine
(AFCM) support the mission of AFCM, a national non-profit, non-
partisan educational organization.

AFCM promotes the philosophy of individual rights, personal
responsibility and free market economics in the health care industry.

AFCM advocates a full, free market health care system by promoting
health savings accounts (HSAs), tax equity for the individual, and
AFCM teaches the history of HMOs, which were instituted by a long,
incremental process of government intervention.

AFCM sponsors educational programs, lectures and town hall meetings
for the public. Membership grades begin at $40 per year and may be
tax-deductible.

Members include patients, Medicare recipients, physicians, nurses and
health care professionals, insurance industry professionals,
including agents, pharmacists and pharmaceutical industry
professionals, financial services professionals, businessmen,
employee benefits professionals and hospital staff. AFCM was founded
in 1993.

About Executive Director, Richard E. Ralston

Richard E. Ralston has been Executive Director of Americans for Free
Choice in Medicine since joining the part-time staff of AFCM in 2002.

His letters and columns written in support of individual rights and
personal choice in health-care policy have since been published in
dozens of major newspapers in the United States.

After serving seven years in the U.S. Army, Mr. Ralston completed an
M.A. in International Relations at the University of Southern
California in 1977.

He then began a career in newspaper publishing and direct marketing.
He has been the circulation director and publishing director of The
Christian Science Monitor, a radio producer, a national television
news business manager, and a book publisher.

As an independent direct marketing consultant, his clients included
IBM, British Airways, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times. His book
Communism: Its Rise and Fall in the 20th Century was published in
1991. He edited the book Why Businessmen Need Philosophy in 1999.

www.afcm.org

"America doesn't need a 'health care czar"


By Paul Hsieh, MD, co-founder of  Freedom and Individual Rights in
Medicine (FIRM )

http:///www.WeStandFirm.org


INTRODUCTION:

KEY DATA: Free market health reforms could reduce health insurance
costs by over 50%.

TAKE HOME: President Barack Obama's plans for a "health czar" would
represent an unprecedented and dangerous intrusion of government into
the practice of American medicine.

Former senator Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's
nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services has left the White
House administration scrambling to find a new "health czar" to
implement their goal of government-run "universal health care."

But while the primary focus had been on Daschle's tax problems,
Americans should also ask a more fundamental question: Why do we need
a health czar in the first place?...

Rest of the article here:

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/America-doesnt-need-a-health-care-
czar-40076027.html

More info on Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:

http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2009/02/hsieh-oped-in-washington-
examiner.html

http://www.WeStandFirm.org

How Socialized Medicine Enslaves Your Doctor' s Mind

This interesting 3:00 minute video clip describes  how government
regulation of medicine enslaves the mind and medical decision-making
of every doctor trying to practice under it.

It describes in layman's terms  the exponential growth and the
effects of conflicting, irrational regulations issued by the myriad
of  government health care regulatory agencies compounded by
similarly proliferating, arbitrary, and often irrational 3rd party
payor decrees under socialized medicine.

It shows how  the attempt to obey thousands of arbitrary orders -
often irrational and unscienifically based-  blows the mind of
hapless doctors trying to practice under them, tying them  "hands,
feet....and mind..." as they struggle hopelessly  to maintain their
professional integrity and duty to the individual patient by providng
life-saving  medical care based on the  objective scientific and
medical needs of the patient while wearing the crushing chains
fashioned by thousands of taskmasters lacking in complex,
sophisticated  medical knowledge and medical training

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJjhEr9tT0I&feature=channel_page

The exceprt is from an article called "Medicine: Death of a
Profession" originally written 30 years ago and published in "The
Voice of Reason" and available here:

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LP08DV

This excerpt was delivered as part of the Q & A  section of the
larger lecture entitled "Health Care is Not a Right" delivered at a
Town Hall Meeting on health care in Costa Mesa, California, and is
published in the book  "Why Businessmen Need Philosophy" by Ayn Rand
and others.

Full lecture online at www.afcm.org
Americans for Free Choice in Medicine (AFCM).

Where Does Your State Rank?

By Paul Hsieh, MD
co-founder Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine

"The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council has come up with a
handy guide to rank the 50 US states (plus the District of Columbia)
based on how badly their regulation raise the cost of health
insurance.

Some of the measures include the number of mandates, whether the
state requires "guaranteed issue", community rating, and employer
mandates, whether it allows tax-free use of Health Savings Accounts."

Here's their guide:

"Health Care Policy Cost Index: Ranking the States According to
Policies Affecting the Cost of Health Care"

http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/SBEC%20polseries%2033%20-%20SBSI-
Health%5B1%5D%202-3-09.pdf

And their conclusions:

Among the 50 states and District of Columbia, the best 15 states in
terms of state health care policies are:
1) Idaho, 2) Utah, 3) Iowa, 4t) Michigan, 4t) Ohio, 6) Alaska, 7)
South Carolina, 8) South Dakota, 9) Pennsylvania, 10t) Nebraska, 10t)
Wyoming, 12) District of Columbia, 13) Kentucky, 14) North Dakota,
and 15) Oklahoma.

Meanwhile, the worst states are: 37) Minnesota, 38) New Hampshire,
39t) North Carolina, 39t) Rhode Island, 41) Florida, 42) New York,
43) New Jersey, 44) Colorado, 45) Maryland, 46) California, 47)
Vermont, 48) Connecticut, 49t) Maine, 49t) Washington, and 51)
Massachusetts.

Our elected officials talk a great deal about "solving the health
care crisis."

Unfortunately, the origins of the crises can largely be traced back
to governmental policies that raise the costs of health care, and
thereby limit the availability of health care coverage.

If policymakers are serious about having a positive impact on health
care, then significantly limiting the number of mandates and
regulations makes sense at the federal and state levels.

Obviously, I wish Colorado ranked higher than 44th. But at least we
have the examples of lots of other higher-ranked states to point to
in the public policy debate!

http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2009/02/where-does-your-state-
rank.html

PajamasMedia OpEd on Cass Sunstein
By Paul Hsieh

"The online political commentary website PajamasMedia.com has
published my OpEd on Cass Sunstein, who is President Obama's new
director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Sunstein is one of the leading advocates of the philosophy known
as "libertarian paternalism".

Although it's not directly related to health care, if his ideas were
implemented, they could have an enormously destructive effect on
American freedoms in many spheres including health care.

Here is the opening of my piece:

Obama's Regulatory Chief Believes in Paternalistic Government
by Paul Hsieh
February 10, 2009

The old joke runs, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Most Americans are appropriately skeptical of such a claim, just as
they are skeptical when told that they've won $10 million in a
Nigerian lottery.

But President Obama's selection of Harvard Law professor Cass
Sunstein to direct the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
threatens to turn this joke into grim reality...


Read thes rest here:

http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2009/02/my-pajamasmedia-oped-on-cass-
sunstein.html

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

"From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized
Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald
Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine. There is no video
because this was an LP sent out by the American Medical Association."

His words of wisdom ring even more true in 2009 .The threat is also
more imminent today -as a Democratic president with widespread media
and majority Congressional support - and even less opposition fron
organized medicine and the general public than 1961-  take advanrage of
proliferating goverrnment-created economic crises to take giant strides
toward the goal of complete government take-over of health care after
years of relentlessly expanding, progressive regulation and intrusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs