Congress' Imaginary Savings

Peter Suderman at Reason Online has a good article about the myth that the Democrats' proposals are "deficit neutral." Right now they're pushing a "fix" for Medicare -- $240 billion! -- and since it isn't part of the health care proposal, they can keep their claim.

Something is rotten in Denmark.

Suderman says, "As legislative scams go, it's pretty obvious — pass a bill on the promise of future savings, then 'fix' those savings later when they prove unpopular."

In the end, it comes down to the fact that government cannot spend wisely. And when it needs more money, Congress votes for more money. No efficiencies ever arise, no savings ever appear.

You can find the original article here.

Gag Order Against Humana Is Lifted

I wrote earlier about Humana's attempt to write a letter critical of the health care reform and the Obama administration's subsequent gag order.

U.S. health officials announced Friday that private insurers can send seniors information on health-related issues as long as they allow their members to opt out of receiving the communications, apparently ending its probe of Humana.

"While we feel it is important to protect Medicare beneficiaries from potentially unwelcome marketing and other communications, we also recognize plans' interest in contacting their enrollees on issues unrelated to the specific plan benefit that they contract with CMS to provide to those enrollees," Teresea DeCaro, acting director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Drug and Health Plan Contract Administration Group, wrote in a memo.

The mailer prompted a complaint from Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which passed its health care bill this week and would cut Medicare and Medicaid spending by about $500 billion over 10 years. The Montana Democrat says that would lead to greater efficiency, not reduced benefits.

I ask you people, where in the history of this country has the government been able to slash budgets and increase efficiency at the same time? Or hell, just increase efficiency?

You can find the original article here.

We Want You To Die -- Really

Alan Grayson likes to say it's the Republicans who want seniors to do so we can save money on health care. A statement about wanting people to die has been made, but it wasn't from a conservative. Consider Robert Reich's words:

"I'll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:

'Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that's true and what I'm going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people...you're going to have to pay more.

'Thank you. And by the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die.

'Also I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid---we already have a lot of bargaining leverage---to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you.'"

You can find the article here.

Pro-Obamacare Republicans Are Lobbyists

If you're wondering why prominent Republicans like Bob Dole and Tommy Thompson are coming out in favor of Obamacare, you're not alone.

Former Republican Health and Human Services Secretaries Louis Sullivan and Tommy Thompson, along with former Senate Majority Leaders Bill Frist (a doctor) and Bob Dole, received plaudits in the president's weekly radio address for exhibiting "the spirit of national purpose" and for understanding "that health insurance reform isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue, but an American issue that demands a solution."

Thompson is a health care consultant at the lobbying firm Akin Gump, whose clients include insurer Aetna, many drug makers, device makers and hospitals. You can find his page here.

In 2008, Sullivan made $220,000 as a director for four health care companies, including the biotech firm Biosante Pharmaceuticals, where he was chairman of the board, according to Forbes. His total 2008 compensation from these companies (with options and other non-cash compensation) was more than $1 million. He has recently served as a director at Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cigna. I can't find a page for him at Briston-Myers Squibb or at Cigna.

Frist is a partner in a private investment firm that bets on health care companies -- and on regulation. The firm's Web site reads: "With deep expertise in the healthcare reimbursement and regulatory environments, the Cressey & Company team has invested in almost every for-profit niche of healthcare." You can see the page where he is listed here.

And Dole is a health care lobbyist for the downtown firm Alston & Bird, which represents drug makers and insurers. You can see his page here.

This explains these four Republicans but no one can explain Olympia Snowe. Who knows what the hell she is thinking.

You can find the original article here.

How to Save $4,000 a Year

Interested? John Lott tells us how it can be done in his editorial yesterday about the Baucus health care bill.

Here's how it goes:

1. Drop your insurance and immediately save money from not paying the premium.


2. Pay the fine as required in the new legislation. This is all of $0 right now and will reach $750 by the year 2013.


3. If you get sick with something big like cancer, buy insurance. The insurance company can't turn you down under this legislation.

And remember, this is annual savings, not over several years.

The legislation and the CBO's estimates assume everyone will buy insurance. But there is no incentive to buy it if you're healthy. It's cheaper to pay the fine and buy insurance when you need it.

You can find the editorial here.

Some Questions on Health Care

From Angry White Dude come ten unanswered questions:

10. Do you intend to honor your promise and hold a serious line by line review of proposed health care legislation with members of Congress or was your July 29 promise to do so merely an insincere political gesture?

9. Why should the American people trust the Administration’s numbers rather than the final estimates of the C.B.O. on the cost of your health care proposals?

8. Why should seniors trust the Administration more than the nonpartisan C.B.O. that your health care proposals will reduce health care benefits to seniors?

7. How can you accuse critics of creating lies about your health care proposals when on several occasions, including your incorrect reference to the circumstances of an Illinois man in your September 9 speech to Congress, your own words have been found to be misleading?

6. If competition can be expected to reduce costs and increase coverage, why is interstate competition not a key part of your health care proposals?

5. How do you expect Americans to believe you have a grasp and knowledge of the healthcare proposals when you appear to be unaware that the language of the Baucus proposal specifically includes the word “tax”?

4. Is the Congressional Research Service in error when it states that HR 3200 contains no restrictions on illegals receiving health care benefits?

3. Why aren’t you currently acting to stop the waste and fraud you claim to have identified that currently exists in the health care system?

2. Why won’t government employees and elected officials be covered under a nationwide health care plan?

1. Is there a good reason or explanation you can give the American people why your plans don’t include a single word that addresses this terrible problem of lawsuit abuse?

Like Angry White Dude, I encourage you to contact your elected representatives and tell them how you feel about health care reform.

The original post is here.

Pay Now, Play Later -- Maybe

All of these grand schemes from the politicians are going to cost us money in the form of taxes and other expenses. The taxes start now but we won't see any tax relief that is proposed for several more years.

Under the Democratic bills, federal tax credits to help make health insurance affordable for millions of low- and middle-income households won't start flowing until 2013 -- after the next presidential election. But Medicare cuts and a sizable chunk of the tax increases to pay for the overhaul kick in immediately.

Obama administration officials and Democratic lawmakers say the reason for the three-year wait is the time it's going to take to set up insurance marketplaces, write consumer protection rules and reconfigure the bureaucracy to carry out the legislation. It took President George W. Bush's administration two years to phase in the Medicare prescription benefit, a more modest undertaking.

The $900 billion that this is supposed to cost is just an accounting trick. Lawmakers use a 10-year accounting window to assess new programs. Starting the Medicare cuts and some of the taxes in the early years -- and pushing the bulk of new spending into the latter years -- helps keep the cost of the health care overhaul within Obama's $900 billion limit. Bush used the same kind of maneuver to push the Medicare benefit through Congress.

You can find the original article here.

CBO: Tort Reform Will Lower the Federal Deficit

Many doctors pay $100,000 to $250,000 a year in malpractice insurance even if they've never had a judgment against them. Neurology leads the list of high-cost malpractice insurance. Obstetrics isn't far behind.

Medical malpractice reform would reduce the annual federal deficit, saving the government $54 billion over 10 years, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

It's the Republicans that are pushing for tort reform. The Democrats, however, have been ignoring those calls. Not surprisingly, they are bankrolled heavily by trial lawyers.

You can find the original article here.

Medicare Waste -- Our Government at Work

If you ever thought we could pay for the health care schemes by cutting out waste from Medicare/Medicaid, you might be onto something.

According to their own auditors, Medicare knowingly overpays for almost everything it buys. Examples include:

-- $7,215 to rent an oxygen concentrator, when the purchase price is $600.

-- $4,018 for a standard wheelchair, while the private sector pays $1,048.

-- $1,825 for a hospital bed, compared to an Internet price of $1,071.

-- $3,335 for a respiratory pump, versus an advertised price of $1,987.

-- $82 for a diabetic supply kit, instead of a $47 price on the Web.

Last year, the Health and Human Services Department tried to replace its archaic fixed-price fee schedule for 10 commonly purchased products with a competitive bidding program in 10 cities. The department said the program could save Medicare $125 million in a single year, or $1 billion if adopted nationwide. But Congress stepped in to stop it.

"There were products that we had as much as 75 percent savings. The average was 29 percent," said Mike Leavitt, the former HHS secretary who oversaw the program.

"It would have saved billions if we could've actually implemented it, but Congress deferred it. In Washington speak, that means we put it off forever," he said.

Leavitt blames Congressmen Pete Stark (D-Calif.) and Dave Camp (R-Mich.) for introducing legislation that terminated the contracts and postponed the program for 18 months. Leavitt says the congressional intervention helps explain why many are suspicious of claims that Washington can cut enough waste to actually pay for health care reform, as President Obama told a joint session of Congress last month.

Although this proves there is a vast amount of waste in the Medicare program, the meddling by Congress to keep the waste in place shows that politicians and the government are not good stewards of our money. It also proves that the government is not the place to look for responsible management or even our trust.

The original article can be found here.

New Taxes in Baucus Health Bill

Wondering where the money is going to come from to pay for government health care? Some of it is going to come from taxing medical devices like these:

* Pacemakers
* Hip joint replacements
* Gastrointestinal tubes
* Artificial hearts
* Hearing aids
* Porcelain teeth
* Heart defibrillators
* Prosthetic heart valve rotators
* Powered wheelchairs
* Ventilators

And that's because they scaled back some of the taxes. Under pressure, the Senate recently exempted medical items that cost under $100 -- such as tampons and condoms.

And where do taxes come to roost? To the manufacturers or retailers? No, they're passed directly on to consumers.

"Looking at the numbers, the bill calls for around to $350 billion in new taxes, so this $4 billion a year is just a small fraction of taxes raised," said Dr. Jennifer Mellor, the director of the Schroeder Center for Healthcare Policy at the College of William and Mary.

Still, it's once again an example of government mandated expenditures on the part of private citizens to pay for this monstrosity. I say demonstrate to me the true savings and then talk about spending the saved money.

You can find the original article here.

Democrats Want to Cover Illegal Immigrants in Health Care Reform

Even though Obama has declared he doesn't want to cover illegal immigrants in the reform, and even though the Baucus bill doesn't allow them to be covered, some Democrats are reaching for their base and demanding illegals be covered.

"Legal permanent residents should be able to purchase their plans, and they should also be eligible for subsidies if they need it. Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room," said Rep. Michael M. Honda, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Mr. Honda was joined by more than 20 of his colleagues in two letters laying out the demands. As a generally young, healthy part of the population, illegal immigrants could help reduce overall costs for those who buy into health exchange plans, the lawmakers said.

The National Council of La Raza launched its own "flood their voice mail" campaign last week to put pressure on Mr. Baucus to expand coverage in his proposal to include all legal immigrants and to drop verification language in the legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining coverage.

We are already covering illegals to an extent. Under the 1996 welfare law overhaul, Congress restricted most federal benefits to longtime holders of green cards - those who have been in the country at least five years.

But Democrats chipped away at that rule when they reauthorized the State Children's Health Insurance Program earlier this year and allowed states to cover all immigrant children and pregnant women, regardless of how long they've been in the country.

I think they should continue to push for this. I know, you're shocked if you've been reading this blog. I think this will be a great focal point of the health care debate. It will show that what the conservatives have said all along about this: it's about increasing the size of the government, it's about covering illegals, it's not about fixing the system. It will be another way to pry the conservative Democrats away from the rest of the pack and hopefully bring down this whole garbage pile they call legislation.

You can find the original article here.

Humana's Flyer Was Perfectly Legal

According to this article, the flyer that Humana sent out about the impact of the Baucus health care bill on seniors was perfectly legal.

In its original mailer, Humana expressed concern about proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid spending by about $500 billion over 10 years, including payments to Medicare Advantage plans worth about $125 billion.

"While these programs need to be made more efficient, if the proposed funding cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable," the mailer reads.

Humana, one of the largest private carriers serving seniors under the Medicare Advantage program, focused its mailer on the potential for cuts to service. Where Humana makes a criticism of the legislation and gets censored by the government, the AARP praises it and gets...nothing. You can find coverage of that here.

Senate Republicans on Thursday threatened to block Obama's health care-related appointments if the decision is not reversed, and House Republicans called for a hearing on what they described as a politically motivated "gag order."

"It's an astonishing overreach," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told FOX News on Thursday.

Republicans held up a Clinton-era letter from the Department of Health and Human Services offering guidance on mailers sent by insurers to customers.

The 1997 letter, written by Center for Health Plans and Providers Director Bruce Fried to a law firm, addressed the question of whether HMOs could tell members about proposed legislation and urge them to express their opinions. The letter concluded that restrictions could violate free speech laws.

This, folks, is just another example of intellectual dishonesty from liberals in government. You know, the kind that Paul Krugman thinks only comes from conservatives.

You can find the Clinton-era correspondence discussed here as a PDF.

Gag Order for Company Fighting Against ObamaCare

Obama says only the bloat in Medicare will be cut, that the savings they propose will come from trimming fat and that care will not be cut to cover costs.

Humana is one of the largest private carriers serving seniors under a program called Medicare Advantage. About one-fourth of the elderly and disabled people covered under Medicare participate in the Advantage program, which offers a choice of private plans that usually deliver added benefits (1).

"While these programs need to be made more efficient, if the proposed funding cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable," it said. It urged seniors to sign up with Humana for regular updates on the health care legislation, and encouraged them to contact their lawmakers in Washington (2).

Senator Baucus (D-MT) has called the Humana letter a "scare tactic" meant to distort the current reforms under consideration. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) alleges that Humana's letter may have violated federal regulations (3).

Oops, somebody forgot to tell the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office director told Mr. Baucus's committee that its plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage—the program that gives almost one-fourth of seniors private health-insurance options—will result in lower benefits and some 2.7 million people losing this coverage (4).

And we have a clear sense of double standards here when you take into account the AARP. The AARP Web site claims that it is a "myth" that "health care reform will hurt Medicare," while it is a "fact" that "none of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress will cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs." (5).

So Humana, by telling the truth is "misleading" people, but AARP, by lying, isn't?

Aaaagh!

And this from an administration that promised open debate? Yeah, right.

====================
1. Alonso-Zaldivar, Ricardo (2009, September 21). "Gov't investigates health insurance company mailer". Associated Press.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Associated Press

2. Alonso-Zaldivar, Ricardo (2009, September 21). "Gov't investigates health insurance company mailer". Associated Press.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Associated Press

3. Pergram, Chad (2009, September 23). "McConnell Blasts Government Over 'Gag Order' on Private Health Care Provider". Fox News.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Fox News

4. "Medicare and Gag Orders" (2009, September 24). Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Wall Street Journal

5. "Medicare and Gag Orders" (2009, September 24). Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Wall Street Journal

The Exagerrated Cost of the Uninsured

One of the main reasons for requiring people to buy health insurance, or be penalized for not, is that the uninsured then use the emergency rooms, which cost everyone else.

In a July press conference Obama said, "...the average American family is paying thousands of dollars in hidden costs in their insurance premiums to pay for what's called uncompensated care, people who show up at the emergency room because they don't have a primary-care physician." (1) Entire transcript is here.

I know I'm not even paying $1000 a year for insurance so I don't know how I'm paying "thousands" to pay for uncompensated care. Plus, I would think that people who go into an emergency room get the care but then also get the bill. Maybe he means those that can't pay the bill, like illegal aliens?

In his interview on ABC News this weekend he said, "You and I are both paying $900, on average -- our families -- in higher premiums because of uncompensated care." (2) The full transcript is here.

Who, in just a couple of months we have gone from "thousands" to $900. We're making progress already, and no government intervention was necessary. But I digress...

But according to a 2008 report from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, both of those claims are off -- way off. The foundation's analysis indicates that the true annual cost per family is more like $200, with uncompensated care accounting for "less than one percent of private health insurance costs." (3) You can find the PDF here.

And for this, an extra $200 per family per year, we want to create a huge government bureaucracy and spend trillions?

So if it isn't the uninsured that is really driving up the costs, what is? Litigation, defensive medicine, "jackpot justice" and other factors we have already covered on this blog. But the legislation proposed isn't about fixing the problems, it's about expanding government.

Obama's assertion that people who don't have health insurance are "irresponsible" and need to buy it is bogus (4). The reason people need to buy health insurance is to pay for those who will be covered but will be costing the government lots of money. People like those who are dying, who require special care. People with diseases like cancer, who can't get private insurance. In other words, the most expensive patients are the ones who are most likely the sign up. It's called the adverse selection problem (5).

Please don't be distracted by false numbers thrown about by Obama and the Democrats. This isn't about covering people who can't afford insurance. It's about expanding the role of government in our lives.

=======================================
1. Sweet, Lynn (2009, July 22). "Obama July 22, 2009 press conference. Transcript". Chicago Sun-Times.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Chicago Sun-Times

2. "Transcript: President Barack Obama" (2009, September 20). ABC News.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from ABC News

3. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2008, August). "Covering the Uninsured in 2008: A Detailed Examination of Current Costs and Sources of Payment, and Incremental Costs of Expanding Coverage". The Kaiser Foundation.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Kaiser Foundation

4. Obama, Barack (2009, September 9). "REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS ON HEALTH CARE". The White House.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from The White House

5. Sullum, Jacob (2009, September 23). "Does the cost of uncompensated care justify forcing people to buy health insurance?". Reason Online.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Reason Online

Just Don't Call It a Tax -- Part 2

In a follow-up to my article this morning about Obama denying charging people for not having health insurance amounts to taxing them, I wish to point out an article from Politico.

They point out that on page 29 of the health care bill it says specifically "excise tax". (Note, if you use the page function in the reader, use page 32, not 29).

And not only is it called a tax, it will be collected through the tax system: "The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed." Now, isn't that convenient. I don't have to write two checks!

You can read Politico's article here. There is much more to it.

We're About to Become a Target

For Halloween, I suggest everyone wear a target on his back. It will make it easier for people like Nancy Pelosi and the liberal unions (redundancy alert!) to hunt down opponents of health care reform.

Health Care for America Now (HCAN), which is backed by a coalition of labor unions and liberal groups including ACORN and MoveOn.org, organized protests to promote President Obama's health care agenda. It drafted the plan to target insurance companies and described the demonstrations as part of its "insurance enemies project." (1)

The HCAN field plan dictates that each protest will include a minimum of 30 participants, target only health care insurers CIGNA, WellPoint and United Health Care and showcase what it calls "victims," or people who have either lost insurance, can't afford it or were denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.

You can see their plan to disrupt a speech by WellPoint CEO Angela Braly here.

You can see their plan to disrupt a speech by America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) CEO Karen Ignagni and present her with an award for being "Best Protector of Profits at the Expense of People's Health." (2)

Let's not forget all the liberal politicians and their apologists in the media, who kept saying the protesters and tea partiers are "astro turf." We see now who is really organizing protests.

And all you politicians decrying the tone of the debate? Take note on which side this is coming from. If you truly want open debate, call off these dogs. No true, honest, open debate is going to come about when "enemies" are being "targeted."


========================
1. Miller, S.A. (2009, September 19). "Health reformers targeting 'enemies'". The Washington Times.
Retrieved September 21, 2009, from The Washington Times

2. "Congressman and Reform Groups Protest 'Put-On at the Ritz'". Health Care for America Now.
Retrieved September 21, 2009, from HCAN

Call It What You Want, Just Don't Call It a Tax

Obama hit the airwaves Sunday morning, spreading his gospel of health care for everyone. George Stephanopoulos grilled Obama about whether or not the mandate to buy insurance is really just a tax increase.

When Stephanopoulos pushed Obama on whether or not it was a tax increase, Obama tried squiring his way out by saying everyone has to pay for it when someone without health insurance uses the emergency room and that it is only "fair" to "ask" everyone to buy health insurance to cover the costs of health care.

When Stephanopoulos pulled out the dictionary to give the meaning of tax ("a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes"), Obama said that just means he is grasping at straws.

No, Mr. Obama, everyone else believes words mean things. Maybe what you mean is to call it an "unfunded mandate" -- when the government demands someone, usually a state, do something but provides no funding for it.

I have another word out of the dictionary:

lie -- something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

The original article from the Wall Street Journal can be found here.

Obama Says 'Legalize Immigrants So We Can Cover Their Health Insurance'

A Washington Times article today says "his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage."

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," he said.

In other words, ignore the broken immigration system and add a new system.

"It is ironic that the president told the American people that illegal immigrants should not be covered by the health care bill, but now just days later he's talking about letting them in the back door," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

The original article can be found here.

Charles Krauthammer Asks, "Does Obama Lie?"

In Charles Krauthammer's post today at Town Hall, he asks if Obama lies and then analyzes his health care speech to discern truth or lie, or if it's just dubious talk. He focuses on three points in the speech:

1. "I will not sign (a plan)," he solemnly pledged, "if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future. Period."


2. He asserts that illegals will not be covered in the legislation, even though all bills presented so far do so.


3. Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" from Medicare.

I won't spoil the article for you; it is a good one.

You can find the article here.

You can find the text of Obama's speech here.

Young People Will Be Shouldering the Burden of Health Care

If you're a young person, like under 30, you should be paying careful attention to the health care debate. I mean, really careful.

If you're like most young people, you are covered by your parents' plans or just don't have health care. But under the Democratic proposals, you will be forced to buy health insurance or face a fine (1).

Estimates of the cost of the fine run from $750 to $950 per year. Some drafts of the legislation have it set as high as $3800 for families (2). This is a switch from Obama's campaign rhetoric, where he said, "Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense."

I want to point out to young people in particular some facts:

• Medicare/Medicaid has been around a long time. It started in 1965 and will never be repealed (3). It is a cost that keeps growing each year.


• We have a shortage of doctors now (30% national shortage of physicians and nurses (4)) and 45% plan to quit if ObamaCare passes (5).


• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71%, answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better." (6)


• Even without the health care debate, Baby Boomers make up a majority of the medical field and are close to retirement. We are facing a bigger shortage in just a few years.


• You will not find health care a guaranteed right in the Constitution.

It is every American's duty to become involved in this debate. The costs will follow this country for the rest of time.

If you truly believe the cost of this program is worth it, then I say it's your patriotic duty to hit the bedroom and produce more income producers and physicians as soon as possible.
============================
1. Murray, Shailagh (2009, September 16). "Young Adults Likely to Pay Big Share of Reform's Cost". The Washington Post.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from The Washington Post

2. Alonso-Zaldivar, Ricardo (2009, September 8). "Fines proposed for going without health insurance". My Way.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from My Way

3. "FAQ" (2009, April 1). The Social Security Administration.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from Social Security

4. Reece, Richard L. (2008, March 7). "The Future of Hospitals And Baby Boomer Physicians". MedInnovationBlog.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from MedInnovationBlog

4. Jones, Terry (2009, September 15). "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul". Investor's Business Daily.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from IBD.com

5. Jones, Terry (2009, September 15). "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul". Investor's Business Daily.
Retrieved September 17, 2009, from IBD.com