“Texas AG threatens lawsuit over health insurance” (Dallas Morning News 01/06/2010) <link error>
“Texas AG threatens lawsuit over health insurance” (Dallas Morning News 01/06/2010) <link error>
“Fasten Your Seatbelts: Bumpy Ride Ahead” (Chicago Tribune, January 5, 2010)
FFS: A realistic, but unfortunately not principle-based analysis of the legislation being steamrolled through Congress.
Q: Hello, Dr. Chartrand. The healthcare debate has heated up tremendously since our last interview. What are your thoughts?
A: You know, it is strange that the liberals in Congress repeatedly make the claim that conservatives have no proposals on the table. I served with the Healthcare Equity Action League (HEAL) during the late 1980s to mid 1990s, and during that time, by virtue of think-tank studies and computer models, we proposed at that time nearly everything that is needed to put healthcare back onto solid footing today. These suggestions will not increase taxes or the deficit, will provide greater individual freedom under the Constitution, and will, over time, drive down total healthcare costs as incentive-driven principles are applied:1) If we want competition, we can have it by allowing competition across state lines. It is puzzling why the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Triumvirate refuse to even acknowledge this suggestion, for by itself it will allow insurers to compete in a truly free market of healthcare options. It is clear that their agenda does not include competition, but a virtual stamping out of the free market and millions of displaced and lost workers in the process. By contrast, taxpayer-subsidized anything is unfair “competition” (if can be called that).2) Remove hundreds of state and federal mandates on healthcare insurance plans that continue to drive up costs by requiring needless coverage (such as maternity, etc, for those who do not need it). These regulations were designed more for protectionism than to meet patient needs. They are unneeded and serve no one but vested interests. Drop these ridiculous restrictions on the marketplace and watch the cost of healthcare nosedive.
3) Tort reform needs to go much further than merely putting caps on non-economic suffering. The spectre of malpractice claims looms large no matter how low or high the caps are. Currently, the cost threshold for legal representation in tort claims starts at $250,000 — and that is just to get to trial! Tort reform must address ambulance chasing, unnecessary medical tests, and frivolous claims with heavy penalties.
4) Expand Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contrary to propaganda from the livid left, HSAs drive down costs as they reconnect accountability all the way up and down the market. Insurers, consumers, suppliers, all, under the HSA model benefit. Fraud and unfair politician-corporate collusions are instantly in the light of day under such a transparent and efficient system.
5) When it comes time to address the serious flaws in Medicare and Medicaid and myriad indigent care programs — which in time threaten to bankrupt both state and federal government if left unchecked — the aforementioned HSA model will be something to consider.
Q: What do you feel are the chances of defeating ObamaCare?
A: I will first say that, due to the enormous outpouring of objections from so many of my fellow Americans, and their passion on this topic, liberal politicians are faced with a deeply passionate and affluent opposition unlike anything we’ve seen in the past. They will not be able to ignore this kind of mass-consensus for long. Americans now realize they have been betrayed by their politicians they put into office and they will not forget that in upcoming election cycles. So, what are the chances of defeating ObamaCare? I would say very good to excellent.
But I qualify those odds this way: If the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Triumvirate succeed in bribing enough vested interests and weak politicians into supporting and passing ObamaCare, a sizable portion of their henchmen will find themselves thrown out of office during the 2010 election cycle. Then, we will defeat ObamaCare before it wastes any more of the time and resources of this nation. If, by a slim chance, ObamaCare survives 2010, the angst of an ignored and double-crossed electorate will surely rise to the aid of their country in 2012 to throw the whole lot of them out of office, and then defeat ObamaCare, just before it goes into effect.
That is my take, and I feel confident that we will win, whether now or later — ObamaCare is such a Trojan Horse filled with bribery, fraud, scandals, intrusions, and creative accounting that the American people will not stand for it to ever go into effect. Who would want a National ID card that is connected to every asset they own just to worse coverage than they now have? Certainly, not informed Americans. Not while better solutions — the elephants in the living room, I call them — stand clearly and resolutely waiting to be adopted. Like they say, “The truth will out.”
Dr. Chartrand serves as professor of behavioral medicine, and is a widely published author, and health researcher. He is also a Constitutional conservative who advocates free market solutions to the current problems in the U.S. healthcare system.
“I repeat — what I am recommending is not socialized medicine.” — President Harry Truman, message to Congress, November 19, 1945
In a nationally televised address to Congress on September 9, 2009, President Barack Obama delivered an eloquent plea to enact major new healthcare “reform” legislation. With a well prepared presentation the president sought to overcome growing public anxiety over his agenda and disarm his critics. He smoothly highlighted and then dispatched prominent concerns, insisting that irresponsible interests had distorted his plans with fear-mongering for short-sighted gain.
With this article we seek to correct several of the misleading statements in the President’s address and recall some important history.
• President Obama: “It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform.”
Correction: In Teddy Roosevelt’s day (he passed away in 1919) there was no health care system to reform. The miracle of modern medicine including antibiotics was still decades in the future. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt agreed to run for a third term as president on the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party ticket, which split the Republican vote, enabling Woodrow Wilson to get elected. The Progressive Party did advocate national health insurance in its platform, although the Socialist Party had endorsed a compulsory system as early as 1904. In fact, it is the incremental socialist success in involving the federal government in health care that has created a system in need of genuine reform.
• President Obama: “If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem, nothing else comes close…. Now, here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, now or in the future.”
Correction: The first statement is an incredible admission. But it is even more incredible in the context of the president’s claim that Medicare and Medicaid were great social accomplishments and of his commitment to expand government intervention.
In the face of those financially disastrous programs, the president still says he wants to finish the job that previous presidents started or attempted. Unfortunately, earlier administrations gave us the costly system that has gotten us in trouble. And they did so under pressure from socialist crusaders acting in the name of reform.
So how does the president propose to enable all Americans to afford the rising cost of healthcare without adding to the deficit? He turns to traditional socialist rhetoric about how more regulation can curtail obscene private-sector profits (while forcing companies to do what is unprofitable). At the University of Maryland a week later, the president told his audience:
“We’re going to eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars of waste and fraud and subsidies to insurance companies that pad their profits but don’t do anything to make seniors healthier.”
Dr. Edward R. Annis, past president of the A.M.A., tells a much different story in his outstanding 1993 exposé Code Blue: Health Care in Crisis:
“All of the current problems in the medical marketplace — hyperinflation, millions of uninsured Americans, excessive administrative costs — carry a “MADE IN WASHINGTON” label. Yet the truth remains hidden to most Americans.”
The real answer to how the government would have to manage the expense of universal healthcare is through rationing of services (in effect, offering healthcare that is affordable, just not all that available). In the early 1990s, the New York Times even warned its readers that “rationing is coming.” And with rationing, the bureaucrats will adopt unwelcome guidelines to determine who gets what.
Guidelines for rationing
An early example of those guidelines was the QALY formula developed in 1972 by Dr. James Bush of the University of California-San Diego. An acronym for “quality-adjusted life years,” QALY rankings had already been used by health planners in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand by1992, according to the New York Times (November 24, 1992).
According to the same New York Times article, “[E]conomists and ethicists say it, or something very much like it, will almost certainly be used soon to rank treatments in the United States.” During the Bill Clinton administration, the Hillary Clinton health care task force commissioned an “ethics panel” to “lay out a values framework to guide health care reform and hold it accountable.”
The identity of the panelists was kept secret, but one of the members who openly published his views was Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota. The October 18, 1992 New York Times summarized Caplan’s views on organ transplants: “Morally, Dr. Caplan said, the goal is to increase the number of lives saved, and that is achieved by giving organs to the healthier people on the list — and skipping the sickest.”
Without much fanfare, federal guidelines have already pushed U.S. hospital administrators into restricting hospital stays for the seriously ill, often contrary to the attending physician’s wishes and regardless of the patient’s ability to pay.
Collectivists must drool over the opportunity such a system would provide government bureaucrats to play favorites and blackmail would-be opponents.
• President Obama: “More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. And that’s how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next.”
Correction: The nation never stood up and demanded Medicare, although many socialist crusaders, such as tyrannical labor boss Walter Reuther, were actively working to create that illusion. When the issue came up during the Kennedy administration, an avalanche of mail from concerned citizens and doctors descended upon Congress beating the proposal down decisively — for the moment.
However, in the wake of the assassination of the young president, the bill’s socialist proponents seized upon the natural sympathy for the slain president to identify Medicare as Kennedy’s wish and push it into law. Dr. Edward Annis, a leader in the fight against Medicare at the time who had engaged both Senator Hubert Humphrey and Walter Reuther in spirited televised debates, observed:
“The Socialist party of America, where the plan for national health insurance was hatched, never garnered more than 6 percent of the popular vote for its specious programs. But through the cunning of the Americans for Democratic Action, aided by an assassin’s bullet, King-Anderson became the law of the land known as Medicare.”
Camouflage for real agenda
For decades, Establishment Insiders and their allies on the left have repeated many of the same myths and pretexts to advance their socialized medicine power grab. One of the most useful pretexts has been the humanitarian — that government must intervene to stop an unfolding human tragedy. That pretext was used successfully to get government’s foot in the healthcare door with Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.
But the pretext for Medicare was a fraud, as Dr. Thomas Dorrity subsequently observed at a hearing before the U.S. Subcommittee on Health, on June 10,1977:
“Let me remind this committee that when politicians, bureaucrats and labor bosses were promoting Medicare, they argued that most people over sixty-five were being denied medical care because they couldn’t pay for the care they needed. But Members of Congress were publicly challenged to produce names of elderly people in that situation. It was promised they would get the care they required without charge. Local medical societies advertised free medical care for the elderly, with confidentiality guaranteed, who needed care but felt they couldn’t pay for it.
“Out of the eighteen million people who were then over sixty-five, a scattered handful sought care from those appeals — and the Members of Congress produced no names.”
Likewise the case for Medicaid was not genuine. In his Code Blue: Health Care in Crisis (Regnery, 1993), Dr. Annis offered perspective from his early experience practicing medicine in Miami:
“During my tenure as surgical chief at Mercy Hospital [1953 to ca. 1963], I was sent countless cases of indigent patients who required treatment outside my specialty, and not once did my fellow doctors fail to provide the care needed — without charge.”
“In those days there was no bureaucratic regimentation, there were few forms to fill out, malpractice premiums were affordable, and overhead costs of running a practice were reasonable…. Medical care was affordable to the average person with rates set by the laws of the marketplace, and care was made available to all who requested it regardless of ability to pay.
Yet despite the widespread availability of steadily improving health care in the U.S.A. and the poor track record of socialized medicine in other nations, the decades-old world socialist drive to have governments take control of this industry continued.
As the history and origins of this drive show, the humanitarian pretext is just that — a pretext. The real objective of the sponsors, behind the deception, has always been about power. The drive for socialized medicine has nothing to do with helping people, but everything to do with establishing a useful steppingstone to full socialism.
Our concern over the renewed “reform” drive is not just about what the consequences will be for healthcare of every American, but even more so what this increasing dependence on government for basic needs would portend for the future of freedom.
Orchestrated demand
Creating the appearance of a groundswell of grassroots demand for government action has long been a favored tactic of the Left. And it has been used repeatedly in support of national health care. As an example, the Washington Times recently obtained a document detailing the strategies and tactics for a series of demonstrations to be held in major cities during September. According to the September 19th Times:
“Health Care for America Now (HCAN), which is backed by a coalition of labor unions and liberal groups including ACORN and MoveOn.org, organized the protests to target insurance companies and drafted the plan, which describes the demonstrations as part of its ‘insurance enemies’ project….
“The [HCAN] field plan says the protests should attract media coverage that ‘creates villains or enemies that serve as a contrast with our side; validates the need for affordability and the public health insurance option; [and] forces the other side to respond.’”
The plan also called for each protest to showcase “victims” or, in the words of the Times, “people who have either lost insurance, can’t afford it or were denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.”
In Code Blue, Dr. Annis recalled another example of orchestration from his own personal experience:
“Owing to my vocal reputation following the Smathers vs. Pepper campaign, I received calls from both the Florida Medical Association and the Dade County Medical Association asking that I represent the profession at a congressional hearing. Patrick McNamara, a chief of the pipe fitters’ union in Detroit who had been elected to the U.S. Senate, was conducting hearings around the country to investigate alleged medical neglect of older Americans in support of a renewed socialization effort in Congress. The first hearing was scheduled for Boston; Miami was next. This promised to be a regular road-show with the unions orchestrating the acts.”
Before the Miami hearing, Senator McNamara sent an advance man, Sidney Spector, to town to drum up witnesses “who would testify to their neglect at the hands of the private medical profession.” Witnesses were prepped on what to say and how to act. Dr. Annis continued with his story:
“On the first day of the hearings, McNamara called his star witness, a sweet gentle, elderly lady who lived in a Protestant nursing home. She testified that her only source of income was Social Security…. In response to a carefully worded question from McNamara, she said that if the need arose, she would not be able to pay for a hospital or a doctor.”
Unfortunately for the Senator’s agenda, Dr. Annis was more familiar with the state of medical care in the Miami area. When he had an opportunity to make his statement, Dr. Annis was able to ask the star witness a couple of questions. He asked the lady about a previous hospitalization and surgery. She admitted that she had not been billed by the hospital nor by another doctor, and then she blurted out, “Dr. Annis, you and Dr. Martin never billed me for my surgery either!”
Because of the history of concealing the off-camera orchestration, one should always be skeptical that reported “spontaneous” demonstrations and protests are genuine and the same regarding heart rending stories.
In fact, the Left has been well organized to lobby for universal national health care for decades. One such organization, the Chicago-based Physicians for a National Health Program, was launched in 1987 by cofounders David Himmelstein, M.D. and his wife Stephanie Woolhandler, M.D. Both cut their activist teeth in radical politics during the civil rights movemenat. Dr. Woolhandler was passionately involved in the Anti-Vietnam War movement for several years, but shifted her area of “social” activism, earning her masters degree in public health at the University of California at Berkley. And both became medical professors at Harvard.
In drumming up support for their cause, the two were interviewed for the Humankind radio series, written and produced for Public Radio. The interview was promoted as “Two Harvard Medical professors critique our current system and offer a better vision — Universal Healthcare.” Two of the quotes displayed prominently on the Humanmedia website summarize the professors’ message:
“When we see huge amounts of money taken out of the health care system and wasted on excessive salaries, on unnecessary care and particularly on the administrative and overhead costs of medicine, it actually means that we’re not going to be able to meet our number one moral priority which is to provide health care for everyone.” — Stephanie Woolhandler, M.D.
“We’re in a new age of robber barons and the robber barons of this era include people who are making ridiculous amounts of money for medical care.” — David Himmelstein, M.D.
We are witnessing a well coordinated deception with many voices delivering the same message, but creating the impression that the messages are independent. Among the voices, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing her part in echoing the line. At the end of July, she stated: “The glory days are coming to an end for the health insurance industry.” [Salt Lake Tribune, August 2, 2009]
• President Obama (a week later addressing an audience at the University of Maryland): “We are the only nation on Earth that leaves millions of people without health insurance. We spend more [on health care] than any country on Earth, and we are not any healthier for it.”
Correction: Many of the propaganda lines regarding healthcare go back decades. The president’s statement attacking American healthcare could easily have been lifted from a 1970 CBS “documentary.” In that year, CBS launched a major assault on the free-market in medicine with a two-part series broadcast on April 20 and 21. The broadcast included the charge: “… the world’s wealthiest nation is far from being the healthiest….”
CBS claimed that America was spending five times as much for healthcare as twenty years earlier yet falling short of what other nations were achieving. The punch line was the CBS claim that “other Western nations have long since solved this problem with national health systems.” A completely fraudulent charge!
CBS was cleverly vague regarding the nations compared and the criteria. For example, how much of America’s health problems are due to unhealthy lifestyles (smoking, poor nutrition, drug habits) over which physicians have little control?
In addition, much of the inflation in healthcare costs was due to the infant program CBS was advocating. At the time of the CBS broadcast, Medicare and Medicaid had been in operation for only five years, but their sponsors clearly intended that those programs would be the foot in the door for a complete government takeover. A few months following the broadcast, the late patriot leader Robert Welch analyzed the CBS message:
“What CBS visibly wanted was to make the American people feel that the doctors of our country had no social conscience, had not been doing their jobs properly, and could not be trusted to have any concern for the improvement of either their own services or of medical service as a whole. And that consequently, like irresponsible children, they should be herded into a vast corral, under the tutelage and control of a Guardian Bureaucrat.”
The CBS program cleverly planted this thought: “It may be, as some have said, that the organization of medicine is too important to leave to doctors.”
Clearly, this drive was organized long before President Obama embraced it. What is urgently needed to counter it is responsible action that exposes the true game plan for socialized medicine — the objectives, strategies, and tactics. Moreover, to hold up any promise of success, such action also needs to be organized, under sound leadership.
We invite all concerned Americans to join with us in creating public understanding about the renewed threat of socialized medicine and in mobilizing that understanding to apply pressure on Congress. Our campaign is just part of a new nationwide drive to restore the fundamental constitutional limits on government that have made the American dream possible.
Specific recommendations for action:
• Email links to this article to others with your comments.
• Share hard copies of our Special Report — an interview with a veteran in the fight against socialized medicine — Dr. Max Chartrand.
• Visit and direct others to our “Say ‘No’ to Socialized Medicine” campaign page.
• To gain a better understanding of the bigger picture — both of the problems facing our nation and their solution — please read the short booklet The Marxist Attack on the Middle Class and then the full-length book Organize for Victory! Both also include recommendations for further action.
On August 6, 2009, Freedom First Society had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Max Stanley Chartrand, who has been a leader in the fight against socialized medicine since the late 1980s.
Q. The subject of socialized medicine has been of concern to you for many years. When did you first become involved in the effort to oppose it and why?
A. I don’t know if I can tell you exactly when I first became concerned about the push for socialized medicine. But one of my first recollections of being truly alarmed occurred in 1985 when, during the Reagan administration, there was a push to get hearing aids covered by Medicare. As a professional in the hearing industry and as a dispenser of hearing aid products, I recognized that such a move would be the death of dispensers like me and of the private market in general. When I spoke with my colleagues about the matter, I discovered that they were completely unconcerned about the danger. In fact, many of them thought that it would be a good idea if government got involved in covering the cost of hearing aids. So, even though I was initially told to sit down and shut up, I analyzed and researched the matter and vocalized my concerns. One of the most alarming facts that I discovered in my research is that it literally costs 4.25 times more money for the government to provide a service than what it would cost for the private sector to provide that same service. So when we talk about ObamaCare, it’s scary to consider the cost and waste that will surely result if it is passed. Later, in the late 1980s, NAM, the National Association of Manufacturers, called upon industries everywhere to form the D.C.-based Healthcare Equity Action League (HEAL), with the purpose of analyzing and formulating healthcare reform proposals. My position opposing government involvement in healthcare was already well known because of my many articles and letters to Congress that had been published. So they asked me to join the national HEAL committee, where I served until 1996 as a representative of the hearing health professions. One of the widely distributed pieces that I wrote is entitled Public vs. Private: Which Serves the Hearing Impaired Market Best? I wrote this booklet at a time when we were trying to straighten out the Bush [elder] administration on the issue of healthcare. We sent a copy of this and a couple other items that I wrote, along with a very detailed cover letter, to every U.S. Senator and Representative. Soon, many members of Congress were calling me with inquiries about my concerns. In the end, the arguments that we provided pretty much neutralized any of the arguments put forth by the proponents of a single payer [socialist] system under the liberals’ “Pay or Play” at the time.
Q. What is socialized medicine?
A. This is a program often referred to as a “single payer” system, which, in reality, is nothing less than taking all resources from the private sector and placing it under one umbrella that is completely under the control of government. Its proponents try to make it sound simple, elegant and benign. But the reality is these bureaucratic systems are bloated, convoluted, and oppressive. The single payer system transfers people’s education, it transfers facilities, it transfers capability, it transfers progress, ingenuity, scientific discoveries, everything under one government-controlled umbrella. Essentially, we will find less of those things because only the private sector can create these resources. And they do only with solid incentives that reward working hard, using talent and ingenuity, and taking tremendous risks. My advice to a state committee that I recently sat on was that we know that government never produces new resources. It only knows how to use up existing resources, and government’s natural tendency is to grow and become a burden to the people. In this sense government is a negative force, which must be carefully monitored so that it cannot consume all our resources. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in two past studies, found that it costs the federal government between 72-74 cents to collect, administer, and spend one federal dollar. Logically, we, as Americans, should be doing everything in our power to keep government out of health care.
Q. Has socialized medicine worked in other countries?
A. In my profession I travel to a lot of foreign countries. And, of course, I work with medical professionals in those countries who understand very well how the healthcare systems in their respective countries function. In talking with them there is not a single socialized system out there that can stand on its own weight. All these countries end up implementing ever-higher taxes, inflation-taxes, rationing programs and closing hospital wings, ultimately forcing their already heavily taxed populations to spend money on private medical care. I have not seen socialized medicine work without these consequences in a single country. For example, Canada has a private healthcare program that sits right beside its socialized medicine system. And most Canadians who can afford it say: “Forget it. I am not using the national program!” They know that they’ll have to wait for months before they can receive medical care. Nobody wants to have a heart attack and then be told you’ll have to wait in line before you can see the doctor. Many of these socialist systems claim to take care of emergencies. Not so! In England, where they’re a little more honest about the situation, proponents of their system brag that taxpayers are saving money because of their long waiting lists. Why? Because people are dying while they are waiting for care. Can you believe that they consider that a cost savings?! In fact, they are considering trying to increase their savings by doings things such as increasing waiting times even more and raising the eligibility age from 55 to 65 for those in need of kidney dialysis and other lifesaving procedures. Of course, every one of these systems has a tiny fraction of the state-of-the-art equipment in comparison to the robust private clinics in the U.S. This alone should speak volumes to opponents of private care. The architects of these socialist systems have embraced the lifeboat theory, which is the idea that there are not enough resources to go around, so somebody must be sacrificed for the greater good. The most likely lifeboat scenario, of course, is to start by eliminating the elderly and the infirm. Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, brother of Rahm “dead fish in the mail” Emanuel, is the primary author of ObamaCare. His guiding philosophy on what he calls “the least productive in society” is well spelled out in his writings and translated into practical terms in Obama’s bill. Seniors should be very afraid of what the chief architect of the bill thinks of their worth to society.
Q. How is Obama being deceptive in his efforts to foist socialized medicine on America?
A. First of all, he is providing us with very few details. And when he does take some time to explain his plan he makes false statements, such as: “You won’t lose your present coverage. I promise you that you won’t lose your present coverage.” What people don’t understand is that he is lying to them. What he really means is that you won’t lose your coverage in the first five minutes or weeks or even months after his plan is enacted. But what he is not saying is that once you try to change your policy, try to switch carriers, or your private carrier succumbs to unfair competition from the government, THEN you will have to go to the government program, mandatorily. Even Obama himself has admitted when pressed on this issue that his plan is designed to eliminate private health care entirely. He claims that it will take 15 to 20 years for this to take place. But I think he is deceptively underestimating how long it will take. I think his new plan will create such havoc that private care will soon come crashing down. Corporations are salivating over the idea that they won’t have to cover their employees. The same is especially true of a lot of unionized companies. Another way he is deceiving us is by telling us that “everyone will be covered.” We know this is not true, because everybody has to apply to be accepted into the program. You won’t just automatically receive the card in the mail. I recently heard an estimate on the news that under ObamaCare only 5 million more Americans will receive coverage in addition to those already receiving it.
Q. You have stated in the past that “we can conservatively estimate that during the first year of enactment up to a third of hospitals will close and that millions of healthcare workers will be lined up for unemployment checks.” Why?
A. In reality, I think that the number of private hospitals forced to close under ObamaCare will be much higher than that. Hospitals are extremely hard-pressed to turn a profit now. Imagine what it will be like for them under ObamaCare. Built into his so-called savings is withholding payment of a half-trillion dollars in hospital payments from senior care. Private hospitals, without taxpayer dollars propping them up in the face of such underpayment, will simply fold. I predict that at least a third will fold in the second year of enactment of his plan, with more to come later until few will be left operating, except those needed for federal government employees, Congress, the President, and his favorite whipping boy “the rich.” These are the ones who have been in reality exempted from ObamaCare. Closing of private hospitals and clinics will displace and arbitrarily redistribute personnel so badly that millions will be out of work and/or forced to move if enacted.
Q. Why should older Americans (65 and older) be concerned about Obama’s use of the term “end of life”?
A. The term “end of life counseling” pops up so often in the bill that one would fully expect to see the words “euthanasia” when expounding upon limited resources and an exploding older population. Indeed, everyone 65 and older will be required to submit to “end of life counseling” every five years to remain eligible for a very down-scaled version of MediCare. Yes, I call it “down-scaled” because the bulk of the expected savings ObamaCare promises to provide come at the expense of reduced MediCare payments to hospitals, rationing, and the implementation of “end of life” (read passive euthanasia) policies.
Q. In terms of who will bear the tax burden of socialized medicine, how will America’s middle class be impacted?
A. Obama is deceptive in this regard. He will say with this bill, as he has said with others, that “I didn’t raise the taxes of hard-working Americans, I raised the taxes of fat corporations that are making tons of profits.” But what we don’t realize is that ultimately everyday Americans always end up footing the bill. Surely, with all the printing of funny money underway this very minute it is only a matter of time before the value of every dollar already in circulation is reduced accordingly. Inflation is a terrible tax that hits man, woman, and child. In addition to this, however, will come many tax increases already in the pipeline if the bill is passed. The reason his claim of strapping the backs of “greedy corporations” is a ruse is because corporations compensate by simply reducing the salaries of employees and increasing the costs of their products. Once they hit the bottom line, though, they enact massive layoffs, send jobs overseas, or close their doors. So we end up paying more for what we buy and living on less. My understanding is that Obama and Congress have already increased the total money supply by about 12% this year and that within a year or two that money will work its way back into real value. After things have settled we’ll see an increase in inflation of about 12%, which doesn’t even take into account the naturally occurring 5% annual increase in inflation already underway from the previous so-called conservative president. It amounts to a hidden tax on the American people, but the effects are as real as if they came right out and sent Roman Sentries door to door to collect the tax as in days of old. The third way, of course, is through openly raising taxes. I’m confident that taxes will go up in every bracket to pay for this massive program. They have to. The truth is that right now those making $133,000/year or more — roughly 5% of the population — are paying 61% of the taxes at all levels, including property taxes, federal taxes, state taxes, etc. They will pay no more—they will close their doors, go overseas, or work to stay under each threshold politicians set for economic punishment. So when Obama talks about the so-called rich, he’s not talking about very rich people. For the most part he’s talking about small business owners, who will suffer greatly if Obama’s bill goes through, as will their employees.
Q. A major component of Obama’s healthcare bill is the implementation of a national ID card. Why should this concern us?
A. Actually, the implementation of a national ID card should alarm us a great deal. Americans go to great lengths to make sure that their social security numbers and financial information remain private. Many Americans are unnerved that the government has created databases with a significant amount of personal information associated with that number. But this national ID card goes much further than our social security cards. It’s going to be tied into bank accounts and personal finances. The language in the bill infers that the government will have extremely invasive powers, totalitarian, if you will. For example, if for some reason you go to the hospital and require some very expensive tests and procedures that are not listed under the standard schedule of fees, the government could use your ID card to seize control of your assets and resources to pay what they consider is an “overrun.” A person who applies for ObamaCare will be giving the federal government total access to everything there is to know about that person. There will be absolutely no privacy. We will be living in a society very similar to that described by Aldous Huxley or George Orwell in their novels depicting oppressive, all-powerful governments. So it behooves all of us to get organized and fight this insidious push for socialized medicine. If we care about our freedoms and our constitutional form of government, we need to stop this effort. It’s not just about medical care. It’s not just about politics — that is the game. Instead, it’s about our freedoms and our children’s freedoms. Once we understand the problem, we need to educate others. I know a lot of Americans who don’t know much about health care, but they are instinctively upset about Obama’s plan. We can and should reach out to these Americans and involve them in our efforts. We need everyone to get behind the wheel of freedom and push with all their might. Then, and only then, will we and our children and our children’s children see the true dawning of America’s golden years.
The Dr. Max Stanley Chartrand story reads like a classic. Born at mid-century in Oregon timber country, he started life in a one room shack until he was 3, at which time a childhood illness left him severely hearing impaired and, by mid-adulthood, profoundly deaf. At age 10, he had already embraced the clarinet and went on to play first clarinet in the Denver All-City and Colorado All-State Band and Orchestras. By age 14 he had developed a reputation as a regional professional performer and during college played with several major symphony orchestras. For more than 30 years he conducted some of the finest choirs in church and community. In time, all of the saxophones and clarinets and other woodwinds were added to his repertoire, in jazz and popular bands, and orchestras. He was also recognized with myriad state and national composition awards, and taught music theory and form and analysis while still an undergraduate.
By early adulthood, advancing deafness prompted him to go back to change fields to the health professions, and since then has earned several advanced degrees, including a doctorate in Behavioral Medicine. He is currently an Associate Professor of Behavioral Medicine at Northcentral University, and owns and manages DigiCare Hearing Research & Rehabilitation with his wife Glenys Anne Denyer Chartrand. Together, they publish and lecture worldwide. In 1994, he was honored with the International Joel S. Wernick Excellence in Education Award and has authored numerous books, training manuals, and published papers. A lifelong hearing aid and assistive device user, he now utilizes a surgically implanted cochlear implant to assist him in auditory function. He is often asked how he has achieved what he has in a hearing world, to which he replies, “I guess because no one told me that I couldn’t.” He feels it a travesty to define a child by his handicaps, and feels handicaps can make individuals stronger when they reach past them to achieve their full potential. For many years Dr. Chartrand has been involved in conservative and constitutional causes. In August 2008, he and his wife, Glenys, became members of Freedom First Society. Spread The Word.
Demo Description
Get the latest news and updates from Freedom First Society.
This will close in 0 seconds