Last week, politicians who helped craft the Affordable Care Act (ACA) celebrated in self-congratulatory style the third anniversary of that monstrosity which will soon extinguish health care as we've known it.

The president's promises about the ACA saving money and allowing you to keep your existing health plan are proving false, as many predicted.

The Department of Health and Human Services maintains the law will make health care more affordable and accessible. The Wall Street Journal, reminding readers of that claim, reported last week that health insurers are privately warning brokers: "premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year."

The 2013 Deloitte Survey of U.S. Physicians, a survey of more than 600 physicians from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, found that "Six in 10 physicians (62 percent) said it is likely many of their colleagues will retire earlier than planned in the next one to three years."

Based on the survey results, Deloitte found that most U.S. physicians believe that, among other worries, under Obamacare, "The future of the medical profession may be in jeopardy as it loses clinical autonomy and compensation" and "Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements may be problematic, prompting many physicians to limit or close their practices to these enrollees." Instead of the established doctor-patient relationship of old, "eight in 10 physicians agree "that the wave of the future in medicine ... involves interdisciplinary teams and care coordinators."

One who thinks he's seen the future and doesn't like it, is my physician, Dr. John Curry of Fairfax, Va. At my request, he sent me the following email:

"Forty years ago, when I began practicing primary care medicine, medical decision-making and its funding were in the hands of patients and their physicians. The only protection patients had lay in the professional ethics of their doctors. In modern terms that sounds pretty skimpy, but think about it for a minute. The first precept was 'Do no harm'. Ask yourself: can you hold your government to that standard?

"The underlying principle was that the physician had to put his patients' interests ahead of his own. This was, of course, the Golden Rule, formalized into standards for professional care. It was also the reason I, and many in my class, applied to medical school. It was the reason my wife's older brother, who practiced medicine in a small town in West Texas, prided himself on the fact that much of the time he 'was paid in peas and pies'. Again, ask yourself, is there any health insurance company or government agency that you can count upon to put your health above their interests?

"The decades have rolled by, and the sea-changes have come. Costs have risen, and personalized care has faded. The monstrosity has been birthed, and soon you will look in vain if you are seeking a personal physician who knows you, cares about you, and to whom you have ready access. You will find only systems, ready to suck you up, give you a number, and provide you with federally approved accountable care in a sterile environment populated by highly regulated strangers. And it will cost you a lot! (Whatever anyone says, prepare for a future where your health costs will be higher and your choices fewer!)

"I am in my mid-70s and have both the capacity and willingness to care for patients for another decade. But I am retiring. I cannot stand it anymore. More than half of my time in the office is spent filling out forms, writing letters, responding to inquiries, and attending to 'urgent' matters that did not exist 10 years ago. And every year my income is less. At this point I would rather be paid nothing and have the freedom to decide what is right for my patients. ACA is only another straw, but for this tired camel, it will break my back."

Neither I, nor the country, can afford to lose doctors like John Curry, but we are and we will. Take two aspirin, but don't call in the morning because Dr. Curry and many like him won't be there to answer the phone.

(c) 2013 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

"The Determinators is a chilling story which uncovers the dark underside of the massive healthcare reform bill that, once fully implemented, will significantly threaten the way Americans live...and die. 

"Based on the book "The Battle for America's Soul" by CL Gray, MD. The Determinators feature leading experts in the field of healthcare who have studied the bill and it's impending ramifications.

"The Determinators highlights several of the worst elements of Obamacare that big-government bureaucrats want to keep hidden from the public until it's too late. It's information people need to know before they decide how to vote."        http://www.thedeterminatorsmovie.com

“Is the president’s new health care plan really health reform or a reshuffling of money and lives? Is your doctor accountable to you or the government? Who determines the quality of life? Who determines the quantity of care? Your very life depends on who controls the game because whoever pays for your health care has the power to decide.”

State legislative candidates may think they’re in the minor leagues, but a big league issue is coming at them. 

Over many years of door-knocking and community forums in five runs for Colorado’s statehouse, I’ve practiced diplomatically discussing misdirected questions about federal issues above my pay grade (way above, sadly).  

But in this critical election, state candidates everywhere have to swing at an urgent fastball delivered by Team Obama-Roberts: 

Should your state throw in with the president and significantly expand the Medicaid program as part of his make-over of U.S. healthcare?

Of course, Team Obama-Pelosi didn’t intend to call state lawmakers into the game on that question. But reliever Roberts threw the pitch straight at them when he revised the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to save it from a 9th inning run-down. Congress’s original play required states to significantly expand Medicaid benefits, or lose all of Uncle Sam’s matching dollars for healthcare for the poor. That devastating hit was unthinkable for states struggling with mushrooming costs. Their only option was submission. But Roberts brushed off the play, and said Congress can’t cut all Medicaid funding to uncooperative states; just the increased dollars tied to the expanded new benefits. (Someday, Roberts may have to account to a higher power for where he got the authority to re-write the playbook, rather than simply call balls and strikes, but that’s a different column).

The effect of Roberts' playmaking is that state governments, not Congress, will have the last word on a critical piece of Obamacare—growing the Medicaid program. This pushes the discussion of what to do about the healthcare law to a broader audience. States will have to act one way or the other. Every voter in every legislative district in the country deserves to hear whether candidates think this is a good idea and how they will vote.

Statehouse candidates who think thrusting government deeper into healthcare is exactly the wrong kind of reform, especially as the modern world faces fiscal meltdown under the pressure of public entitlements, have a critical opportunity to make their case and to educate voters. Here are some points they might consider:

Shortly after Medicare’s creation in 1965, Congress estimated the program would cost $12 billion in 1990. In reality, the number was $110 Billion. Virtually every projection the government has made about every facet of Medicaid has grossly understated actual costs.

Medicaid is one of the biggest and fastest-growing parts of the national budget and of every state budget.  Pouring public money into a good or service doesn’t make it “more affordable”; it just changes who’s paying. Pouring public money into a good or service doesn’t lower costs; it tends to inflate them.

Public programs lack the discipline of market forces based on supply and demand, so government regulators have to invent alternative ways to try to keep costs down. The most common strategy is cutting the reimbursement rates government allows to providers. But Congress has gone to that well too often, with increasingly harmful results. Already, many providers won’t accept Medicaid patients because of the low compensation. It is increasingly difficult for poor people to find basic care; they’re covered on paper, but not in reality.

When providers lose money treating under-funded Medicaid patients, they have to cover their shortfall by charging their insured patients more. That cost shift, from insured patients to government funded patients—rather than the media’s favorite bogeyman, unpaid ER care--is by far the biggest cost shift in healthcare.

Too, expanding public programs worsens other problems in private healthcare. More generous public options drives a problem called “crowd-out,” When public benefits climb higher up the income scale, they make it harder for struggling employers to justify the cost of providing insurance; their employees will be covered anyway. More companies are succumbing to the pressure to drop coverage.

Crowd-out does damage in all directions. Fewer people pay into the actuarial pool that sustains private health coverage, pressing rates even higher. More people fall into the underfunded public program, raising costs there, causing pressure for provider cuts, driving greater cost-shift, and the death spiral continues.

All these issues are critical for the future path of healthcare and for state and federal budgets. 2012 presents a rare and important opportunity for local candidates to engage crucial national questions.

 

"Glenn invited a panel of doctors to discuss the impact of Obamacare on their practice and personal healthcare. 

"Will you be able to receive the same quality of care you were getting before Obamacare? 

"And will your doctors be penalized for not going along with new government regulations? 

"Glenn encouraged viewers to watch the segment above and share it with their own doctors."

The Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare took politicians, pundits, and policy experts by surprise.    

Now they are trying to figure out what the unprecedented "Obamatax" means.

One thing they seem to agree on:  It will be the largest 
tax increase on the middle class in U.S. history.

As a U.S. special services officer, General Jerry Boykin was trained to recognize what Marxist insurgencies do.  They have a specific pattern of operation when they take over a country.

In the following video, General Boykin describes how President Obama is doing these very things in America today:

1. Nationalize (give government control over) major sectors of the economy.  This happened in the bailouts.  Obamacare will nationalize the healthcare industry.

2. Redistribute wealth.  In addition to proposed tax increases on the wealthy, Obamacare is a massive redistribution of wealth.

3. Discredit their opposition.  Rather than protect citizens from the very real dangers we face, Homeland Security has targeted “right-wing” Christians, pro-life groups, second amendment groups, and returning veterans as threats to our security.

4. Censor and suppress those they disagree with. 

5. Control gun ownership. Take away the right to bear arms. Obama has said he will sign the United Nations small arms treaty that allows international bureaucrats to control if we can have guns.

6. Develop a force that can control the population.  The Healthcare legislation establishes a Ready Reserve Corps, which is a civilian military force. 

These are just a few examples.  During the Obama administration, thousands of pages of bills were ramrodded through Congress without time for adequate review.  

These bills contain many dangerous unconstitutional provisions that will destroy our freedom.  

What can we do?  

• LIKE this post to spread the word.
• Use the constitutional tools that protect our rights and liberty.  
  
• Tell our elected leaders how we feel.  
  
• Find candidates who represent our values and views.

Read More:  Obama's Grand Miscalculation with Catholics


Read More:  Catholic Organizations Across the Country File Suit Against Contraception Mandate

Jay Sekulow appeared on Fox News speaking about Senator Leahy's threat directed at Chief Justice Roberts. 

The Senator demanded that Chief Justice Roberts vote to uphold ObamaCare or tarnish his record. This is considered a warning shot to the Justices deciding the Healthcare law. 

Ignoring the Constitution, President Obama and his allies in Congress have stepped outside precedent, sending threatening signals to the Judiciary.

Please LIKE if you believe it's time for the president and his supporters to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States!

Freedom of religion is one of our unalienable rights, long recognized and protected in the United States of America.  

The Pilgrims sacrificed everything to come here for religious freedom.  

Our Founding Fathers took great pains to protect religious rights in our founding documents.  

The Supreme Court has a long history of upholding and protecting freedom of religion.  

But now, unelected bureaucrats are ignoring the Constitution, and legal precedent, and are trampling religious freedom as they push to implement their radical social agenda.

Watch as Congressman Trey Gowdy confronts Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, and makes it painfully clear she has no legal basis for her HHS abortifacient mandate.  


Please LIKE this post if you believe freedom of religion should continue to be protected in America!

"The last entity Americans should have to deal with when making health care decisions is the IRS, but the White House recently sent $500 million to the IRS purely for the implementation of Obamacare. 

"To hear our full conversation on this, as well as on the misleading notion of tax “fairness”, watch the video below."   ~Michele Bachmann