Obama's Affordable Care Act is bad medicine for America
State Sen. Pat Colbeck and the Michigan House should be congratulated on their bold refusal of the $9.8 million in federal funding to establish a Michigan Health Insurance Exchange. They did their homework and realized that this funding comes with mandates from Washington that prevents Michigan from creating an exchange in our image.
According to the "Affordable Care Act" (ACA) or "Obamacare," any Michigan exchange must be approved by the Health and Human Services secretary and it cannot materially differ nor conflict with regulations created by the secretary. Refusing this funding is a great starting point to the many challenges that this law will rightly face this year.
Matt McCord, MD
The 2,801 pages of the two bills that are the “Affordable Care Act” (ACA) is like an onion with many layers. When you start peeling back the skin it begins to stink and as you get to the core you are left crying. Some of the early provisions are good policy and should be part of any health care reform; maintaining coverage for higher-risk individuals with pre-existing conditions, allowing for dependent coverage until age 26, and prescription drug assistance. These make sense.
However, if you look further into this legislation you will see why it is a stinker: it calls for 132,000 pages of regulations, creates 159 new agencies, boards, and commissions and it calls for each state to create their own health insurance exchange4. This growth in government infrastructure sounds expensive and it is. Early estimates are that this will cost Americans $1 trillion in new spending over the first 10 years. That estimate assumes that only 19 million of the 111 million eligible Americans sign up for the government-sponsored health insurance plans. Many estimate that this number will more than likely double because the legislation encourages employers to move their employees into these plans3. You read right; instead of paying anywhere from $8,000-15,000 for their employee’s private health care coverage, businesses can pay a token fine of $2,000 and have the government provide a health care plan for their employee. By this mechanism, a significant portion of our U.S. workforce will now be placed into Medicaid, a program originally intended for the poor and disabled. Unfortunately, because Medicaid is co-managed by each state and part of every state’s budget, this added Medicaid burden will greatly impact every state’s bottom line. This is why 26 states (including Michigan) are rightly challenging this legislation in the Supreme Court.
One trillion dollars is a very big number, who pays for all this? That is the other stinker. Beginning in 2013, Americans will be subjected to an additional $500 billion in new taxes. This includes an additional payroll tax and a new unearned income tax on investments and other proceeds like the sale of your home. Additional taxes on the industry will likely be passed on to Americans: excise taxes on drug makers, a tax on medical device makers, and, beginning in 2014, health insurance companies will be taxed based on their market share. By comparison, the payroll tax cut extension that Congress is so vigorously debating this month returns about $160 billion to Americans; that pales in comparison to this new added tax burden.
Where will the other $500 billion come from? If you are not crying already, this is where you should reach for the tissue. This will come from Medicare cuts. Just as baby boomer Americans are turning 65 years old, after paying into Medicare for decades, the ACA calls for unprecedented cuts to Medicare spending. This includes cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, drug coverage, and payments to providers and hospitals. The government knows that this will be hugely unpopular with aging Americans so the ACA has created an Independent agency, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, which is a 15-member panel that is appointed by the president and has to answer to no one. Americans will not be able to remove these appointees and you can just imagine the lobbying that will occur with them.
Ok, here comes the waterworks. Does it improve access to care and lower costs? We don’t have to look very far to see what government managed health care reform looks like. From 2006 to the present the State of Massachusetts implemented a statewide health care plan that the ACA is modeled after. According to Factcheck.org, this legislation added about 400,000 residents to the insured pool at an estimated cost of $707 million dollars. Additionally, Medicaid spending in the state increased from $7 billion in 2006 to $9.3 Billion in 2010.
Unfortunately, the private insurance market is not more affordable as small business premiums have increased by 15% where the average annual premium for a family is now $15,000. Access to care has worsened where now less than half of primary care doctors in the state are accepting new patients and emergency room visits have increased 9% from 2004-20088. On the less populace west side of the state, emergency room visits have increased 20% and residents must wait for as long as 12 months to get in to see a primary care doctor. Can we all agree that, given these results from Massachusetts, it is unlikely that the “Affordable Care Act” will be either affordable or improve access to care?
As our economy continues to struggle and as we increase our national debt ceiling to over $15 Trillion we need to take a close look at this legislation. In these difficult economic times should Americans be concerned that the ACA is essentially our government monopolizing an industry that makes up 1/5th of our GDP? Our economy and our personal well-being can ill afford to get this wrong.
Matt McCord, is a practicing anesthesiologist, clinical instructor and health care administrator in Ann Arbor. He is the secretary for the Michigan Chapter of Docs4PatientCare (docs4patientcare.org/about), which he describes as a national, nonpartisan, grass-roots doctor organization seeking to repeal the ACA and create a sustainable health care reform law that minimizes government intrusion, maintains freedom of choice and preserves the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship.
Comments
thinker
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 4:09 p.m.
Obamacare is much more all-encompassing than any Canadian and European Health care plan, and those countries can no longer afford them. We simply cannot afford a federal health care program. Leave it to the states to decide how much they can afford. With the number of people unemployed, underemployed, or on 99 week unemployment, there are no longer enough working tax payers to fund all the programs the federal government would like to foist on us. We are not nor can we afford to be Ameritopia. We will end up like Greece.
jcj
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 2:15 p.m.
I did not see the left wing posters complain that a2.com didn't identify the following as a "left wing" opinion located on the same page! OPINION: Call to activism: Stand up against cuts in social services when they are needed most My how the blinders have a way of filtering out what we disagree with! The "joke" here is the intolerant attitude of the lofty left wing dumbocrats!
Mike
Thu, Feb 9, 2012 : 8:38 p.m.
I get it, it's an opinion piece. Obviously paid for by your lobbyist group (since your group is now actively endorsing candidates, that's really all you are) which gets its funding from doctors (and probably insurance companies) who get their disposable income by any health care expenses in excess of what I'm actually getting. I understand. I also realize that is typical with most opinion pieces of both conservatives and liberals (btw, those are now quite false labels), that for the most part, they are quite often not supported by any links to where the author (or whoever wrote this piece, probably a committee), got his or her information, and even then, those sources can be suspect. What I don't care for, is this attitude of attack, attack, attack. Well, Dr. McCord, what are your solutions to the problems of UNISURED citizens, especially children? More emergency care rooms? More wait until the problem is so severe that there are now huge costs involved with any kind of diagnosis? You're very good at telling us what you think is wrong with ACA, now offer your version to resolve that issue, and let's see where it is just as wrong. We're all waiting. (ps, it's called LOWERED COSTS!) You say our economy is continuing to struggle, right? How are you helping in that struggle? I read your website page and you're first and foremost against 'Obamacare'. Got it. But, what are YOU actually doing to help in this economy? Lowered your charges? How many hospitals (and insurance cos.) have you and your fellow docs4patientcare members encouraged (actually, I mean demanded) to lower their charges? How about the big pharma? Is your organization trying to get them to lower their charges? Oops! We don't want to go there, do we? Do you offer non-payment services to outreach clinics? Sold that 5th vacation home you own, so you can do those things? Didn't think so.
hank
Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.
You want to cut medical costs open more medical schools. There are many really good applicants being turned away from med schools due to limited enrollments.
1bit
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 9:34 p.m.
C'mon, Matt, you can't be nonpartisan and say "Obama's Affordable Care Act". Congress wrote the bill, not Obama. Plus the nonsense about cutting Medicare is to scare people - you are well aware that the Medicare Advantage programs were pork for health insurance companies and didn't provide any better care than the less expensive standard Medicare program (which is not being cut in the least). And you also know that drug manufacturers charge us more for the same drug sold elsewhere. Likewise that hospital reimbursements are 30-50% greater for the same service compared to an ambulatory surgery center. Sure, there are things in the bill that aren't great and need to be fixed. Fine, let's fix it. But all we hear is "repeal" it with no alternative solution. But ultimately, as Mick52 noted, having health insurance does not mean having good health or the populace making healthy choices. Currently 5% of the population consumes 50% of health care costs. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension and obesity are a big portion of the problem. Access to health care, which is what the ACA does, will not change the poor choices of some. The idea is diluting the risk pool will help lower premiums and it may help somewhat, but ultimately we need to not only improve access but improve our lifestyles.
maallen
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 10:53 p.m.
One only has to look at Massachusetts to see how terrible ObamaCare will actually be. Since proponents of ObamaCare are so quick to say that it is modeled after Massachusetts, we should look to that state and see how well it is doing. Unfortunately, it is not doing so well. It has not brought down costs. It has not brought down premiums. It has only increased both dramatically. Now the state of Massachusetts is implementing PRICE CONTROLS! We all know what happens when the government implements price controls. Something we all learned in economics 101.. Even Robert Dynan, chief of the financial analysis unit at the Division of Insurance for the state of Massachusetts stated that the Massachusetts system is a "potential train wreck." The Massachusetts attorney general (a democrat) wrote in a report in 2010 "Can we expect the existing health-care market in Massachusetts to successfully contain health-care costs?" The report concluded, "To date, the answer is an unequivocal 'no.'" Kathleen Sebeilus, Secretary of Human and Health Services, even stated that premiums will not go down because of the new health Care law! Now, let's discuss Medicare. What is being cut to help fund in part the ObamaCare legislation is the payments to doctors who take care of our senior citizens. What is unfortunate is the payments are already low and is about to get even lower unter ObamaCare. With our aging population, we are at the point where doctors can no longer afford to see medicare patients. Once doctors are forced to stop seeing medicare patients (and some have stopped) what will happen to the senior citizens? Who will they go see?
hank
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 6:11 p.m.
I wonder what McCord thinks of Medicare since he is so against the ACA act. Medicare is government run, maybe he wants that gone as well.
Tom Smith
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 4:05 p.m.
From the moment he refers to the ACA as "Obamacare", we know where Dr. McCord's sympathies lie. That the press kit of his organization cites the Washington Times several times is all we need to know about their "grass roots".
hank
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.
He should have included the wall street journal too.
hank
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 2:06 p.m.
So far in this country we don't let people die in the streets from no healthcare. So as you shout down this proposal of affordable care because you don't want to pay you will in the end. When a person goes into the emergency room and has no insurance who is paying the bill,you.
DwightSchrute
Thu, Feb 9, 2012 : 7:32 p.m.
maallen, please show me how we're better off doing nothing for another year in regard to legislating better healthcare access for all, costs be damned? Costs are going up every year by double digit percentages as is. What's the harm in trying to reform the system even if we have to pay a bit more? No different than doing nothing and paying more anyway, except without the legislation we continue to allow healthcare costs to be the No. 1 reason for personal banktruptcy in this country. You're fine with continuing along that route? THAT is the purpose of government - finding solutions for the good of all.
maallen
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 3:19 p.m.
Please show me where the "affordable" part comes into play in ObamaCare. Supporters of ObamaCare keep pointing to Massachusetts and saying ObamaCare is modeled after Massachusetts. So, let's look at Massachusetts. Has their costs gone down? Nope, it's gotten worse! The state of Massachusetts is now implementing price controls. We all know what happens when the government implements price controls. Something we all learned in economics 101.. Even Robert Dynan, chief of the financial analysis unit at the Division of Insurance for the state of Massachusetts stated that the Massachusetts system is a "potential train wreck." The Massachusetts attorney general (a democrat) wrote in a report in 2010 "Can we expect the existing health-care market in Massachusetts to successfully contain health-care costs?" The report concluded, "To date, the answer is an unequivocal 'no.'" So much for the Massachusetts plan working. In September of 2010 Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Human and Health Services, (you know, the one that is overseeing this new health care law) admitted in a letter to the Association of health insurers that because of the new law premiums will be going UP. "According to our analysis...any potential premium impact from the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions under the Affordable Care Act will be minimal."
Somargie
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 7:09 a.m.
Just another self-serving spokesperson representing a conservative organization who believe that we should all be at the mercy of unethical insurance companies who believe people should be thrown out of medical care because of pre-existing medical issues, continual increases in medical care, young adults don't deserve insurance, outrageous cost for medicine and so on... The real shame is that this person is a medical professional, who at best is trying to protect his own financial self-interest and lost sight of the oath of medical care.. We are truly doomed when medical professions trash Affordable Healthcare for all. The only intrusion we faced is the self-serving professionals who hide behind organizations that force their political agenda in secret.
jcj
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 2:16 p.m.
Just as you are another self serving left wing that wants handouts across the board!
Sparty
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 4:03 a.m.
The American Medical Association supports the legislation and actively participated in its development.
maallen
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 3:13 p.m.
@sparty, While it is true that the leaders of AMA supports ObamaCare, majority of AMA's members do not. A recent study done in September 2011 showed that only 13% of its doctor members agreed with AMA's support of ObamaCare. To take it even further, many doctors are now disassociating themselves from AMA and 47% of them are saying its because of AMA's support of ObamaCare. Also, did you know that only 17% of physicians belong to AMA? Hardly a true representative of practicing physicians. And now to understand WHY ama supported ObamaCare: The answer is that the federal government created a monopoly for the AMA, giving it exclusive rights to publish medical billing codes. Every physician and hospital MUST use these codes. And do you know how much that is worth to AMA? $70 million to $100 million per year! Looks like Obama bought his support for ObamaCare!
ralph mcgraw
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 1:46 a.m.
Sure don't want to help folks who can't afford the rising costs of health care; sure don't want those doctors to take any kind of a pay cut or freeze to keep folks healthy. Kinda funny that the very people who don't want to change healthcare in America (Congressmen/women) sure get the best healthcare when they or a family member gets sick . . . and we suckers pay for them.
Mick52
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 10:12 p.m.
This law is an atrocity but it is a perfect example of how our government typically addresses very critical issues. We have a big health problem in the US. The entire country is obese. The last couple of states where the average did not meet "obesity" by the CDC fell last year. But does Obamacare put any responsibility on us, individuals to get healthy? No, it requires insurance companies to take on individuals "with pre-existing conditions" no matter what. They must be accepted which is going to mean much higher premiums. Sound familiar? We do it with carbon emission too. Make the auto companies build fuel efficient cars. Why not make gas tax higher and impose a 55 mph speed limit? Oh no, can't do that, we have to go after the industry not individuals even though worldwide it works. But no, govt just want more money instead of sharing responsibility. Why not requirements for people to get healthy? Stop smoking? Nope. For you folks who think a single payer system is a gem, read this: <a href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/uk_smoker_denied_surgery_for_broken_ankle/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/uk_smoker_denied_surgery_for_broken_ankle/</a> And here is an interesting article on how obesity increases costs: <a href="http://www.livescience.com/8726-hidden-costs-obesity-bring-yearly-total-73-billion.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.livescience.com/8726-hidden-costs-obesity-bring-yearly-total-73-billion.html</a> Also you have to buy insurance or get fined. Well if the fine is less than what insurance will cost, why buy it? Pay the fine and just get insurance after you get sick or injured, then stop paying. Unless the fine is the same as premiums, why buy it? The bottom line is, health care is simply very expensive. You can't make it inexpensive. It requires many people who are well trained and well paid. It is complex technologically which is expensive, the research is expensive. The infrastructure is expensive. Caring for illegal immigrants is expensive. An unhealthy population is expensive. You just can't make it inexpensive and what the President should have done is found out if people want a significant increase in taxes to fund more of i
1bit
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 9:35 p.m.
Mick52, my only regret is I can only vote up your post once.
Peter
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.
You can keep saying 'Non-Partisan! Non-Partisan!' as much as you'd like, but that won't ever make it true. Anything funded by the Heritage Foundation is undeniably, 100% partisan.
Richard Armstrong MD FACS
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:47 p.m.
Congratulations, Dr. McCord on this thoughtful article and your efforts to educate your colleagues and the public concerning the ACA and the Health Insurance Exchanges that have been mandated by this law. Dr. McCord is correct, Michigan has no room to create their own exchange. All exchanges in all states are exactly alike. Michigan is currently part of the 26 state and the NFIB lawsuit in the Supreme Court opposing the individual mandate of the ACA. Support for the creation of an exchange in Michigan, undermines the attorney general in this effort. The bottom line is health insurance exchanges are wholly unnecessary and actually represent another unnecessary bureaucracy in American health care. Docs4PatientCare is a non-partisan 501(c)6 physician's membership organization, the exact same structure as the AMA, but differs in that we actually support practicing physicians in America, not a bloated income stream from CPT coding and the sale of physician information to pharmaceutical companies. We are proudly joined in this effort by the Pacific Research Institute, The Galen Institute, The Heritage Foundation and other organizations who support consumer driven patient centric health care reform. We receive no financial support from these organizations. We receive financial support from our members and others who donate to our D4PC Alliance. We are very proud to have Dr. McCord on our team. All Michiganders should be proud of him! Richard A. Armstrong MD FACS Chief Operating Officer Docs4PatientCare
DwightSchrute
Thu, Feb 9, 2012 : 7:04 p.m.
Hank, Maybe you're right. Maybe we oughta be like ostriches. blah, blah, blah. "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Isaac Asimov
hank
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 6:16 p.m.
And blah,blah, blah plus blah blah .
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:52 p.m.
<a href="http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/dec/19/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-study-found-massachusetts-lost-180/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/dec/19/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-study-found-massachusetts-lost-180/</a>
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:52 p.m.
<a href="http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/jan/22/frank-lasee/gop-us-senate-candidate-frank-lasee-says-study-pre/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/jan/22/frank-lasee/gop-us-senate-candidate-frank-lasee-says-study-pre/</a>
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:20 p.m.
"Docs4PatientCare is a non-partisan 501(c)6 physician's membership organization, the exact same structure as the AMA, but differs in that we actually support practicing physicians in America, not a bloated income stream from CPT coding and the sale of physician information to pharmaceutical companies." I declare straw man.
Bogie
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:16 p.m.
So funny. You nailed it ypsiveteran. The only arguments from the Obamacare supporters, are character arguments of the author (also how much money he makes). I challenge anyone on here, to factually dispute the numbers the Doc has reported, and to make an argument for Obamacare. Come on, I thought A2 was filled with intellectual progressive thinkers. The doctor's affillliations do not have anything to do, with the facts, he is stating. Question the facts, not the affiliations.
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:35 p.m.
Furthermore, I'd venture to guess McCord takes a salary from St. Joseph Mercy, where he works, and actually has very little interaction, and thus useful insight, with insurance companies. Were he a private general practice physician in the community, I'd be much more apt to hear what he has to say and give him more credence on the topics of insurance and billing. And FACTUALLY speaking, Medicare/Medicaid are not being cut in any way, shape, or form. Their spending growth will slow, yes. But that is not the same as being cut.
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:32 p.m.
Fact of the matter is, nobody knows the real numbers until the Act takes full effect. So for anyone besides the nonpartison budgetary office to cite 'estimates' as fact, as McCord and the Heritage Foundation does, is pure crazy fear talk. Same applies to anyone overstating how much money they believe will be saved by the act.
Jeremy Engdahl-Johnson
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 6:57 p.m.
Following the release of regulations by Health and Human Services, 8 key questions still remain about state healthcare exchanges. <a href="http://www.healthcaretownhall.com/?p=4179" rel='nofollow'>http://www.healthcaretownhall.com/?p=4179</a>
RoobsieT
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 6:16 p.m.
Just a quick reply to the several ridiculous comments to the doctor's op-ed. First. Where is the evidence that the Heritage Foundation "supports" the organization Dr. McCord represents? Another comment asked for alternative proposals to the PPACA. How about visiting the D4PC.org website like I did? They present a platform, of practical and affordable strategies that the average patient can understand and they seem very reasonable. I know this requires a little effort and most Americans reject the notion of extra work, but I'd advise going there before you reject the doctor's opinion. Another naysayer made the typical class envy comment regarding the average salary of an anesthesiologist in Ann Arbor. There are certain occupations in this world that I believe need to be well-compenated in order to attract the best and brightest. Certain professions come immediately to mind, anesthesiology is one of them. Perhaps the author of the comment prefers to have the lowest bidder of anesthesiology service put his child to sleep at 2 AM for their emergency appendectomy. Before we ignore the warning by knowledgeable professionals who are in the trenches everyday, I'd advise keeping an open mind. Dr. McCord acknowledges that there are several worthy features in the law, but he just points out what he believes will be a huge liability for Michigan patients and taxpayers. My state is considering the same strategy. If one actually reads the law(as I did), the doctor is exactly correct. Regardless of whether your state complies and starts implementing is immaterial. The fact is the state-designed law needs to be indistinguishable from the federal law. The responsible thing is to await the SCOTUS decision and the result of the November 2012 election.
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:16 p.m.
PS, Two doors down from my house is a house with 2 doctors. In the house right next door is a doctor and a nurse. The house across the street? A lawyer. You have the nerve to try to define my politics by a few posts off this editorial? I certainly hope you don't apply a similar line of thinking on the job, Matt.
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:13 p.m.
Good Lord, Matt. Where did I mention ANYTHING about class warfare? And THEN you have the audacity to say in the end that you, as a doctor, make as much per hour as a teacher? Are you forgetting to subtract out-of-pocket expenses from teachers' salaries like you did in computing your own adjusted hourly wage? Good Lord, Matt.
Jake C
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9 p.m.
@Matt: Class warfare? Really? Dwight mentioned nothing about relative earnings. His point is that someone working for a health organization like St. Joseph Mercy does not have the direct involvement with insurance companies that a Primary Care physician does. As for claiming that $200k/yr Medical Specialists make about the same as a teacher, that's a joke, right?
Matt mcDonald
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:39 p.m.
Strategic partner means just that Dwight. It doesn't mean D4PC takes money from Heritage. We have had the opportunity to meet with experts in healthy care reform at Heritage but they don't give us money. I wish we did, because it's difficult to make an impact just on physician dues alone, especially since many docs are stretched thin. Sorry, conspiracy theory #1 shot down. Your class warfare approach does little to advance meaningful discussion. Sure, docs make more money than typical Americans. But they have larger costs (medical education, malpractice insurance, etc). In the end, we make about as much an hour as teachers. No, really. <a href="http://benbrownmd.wordpress.com/" rel='nofollow'>http://benbrownmd.wordpress.com/</a> And as a private-practice physician (a specialist), I make about $200K/year but I am still living month-to-month trying to pay down my debt. I would love to own a house some day but cannot afford one at this point. Now you want to occupy my salary because you think I make too much? BTW, if any left-wing or right-wing organizations want to give us in D4PC money, we'll take it.
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 7:35 p.m.
Furthermore, Roobsie, I'd venture to guess McCord takes a salary from St. Joseph Mercy, where he works, and actually has very little interaction, and thus useful insight, with insurance companies. Were he a private general practice physician in the community, I'd be much more apt to hear what he has to say and give him more credence on the topics of insurance and billing.
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 7:30 p.m.
Hey Roobsie, keep checking around at the d4pc.org web site, and you'll see the evidence in their own very words: Heritage Foundation is mentioned as a strategic partner. Furthermore, anyone can go look up Matt McCord's Facebook page and see the affiliations there, and not just in his list of 'likes,' which includes docs4patient care, followed directly by the Heritage Foundation. Is this gun smoking enough for you yet?
Belgium
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 6:37 p.m.
Good job. Now get it through a belligerent congress that is sworn to see Obama fail regardless of the impact to the country. Yeah, it's not the best that it could be. If it was, we'd have a single payer system in this country like the rest of the western world.
Veggie Burrito
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 5 p.m.
In order to understand Dr. McCord's personal interest in the Affordable Care Act, it should be noted that the median salary for an anesthesiologist in Ann Arbor, MI is $344,904. (<a href="http://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/anesthesiologist-Salary-Details-Ann-Arbor-MI.aspx)" rel='nofollow'>http://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/anesthesiologist-Salary-Details-Ann-Arbor-MI.aspx)</a> In recognition of the tremendous cost-saving value of primary care providers in helping to avoid more costly care (such as emergency room admissions for symptoms more appropriately treated by a primary care physician or mismanaged chronic conditions), provisions of ACA will increase Medicare and Medicaid payments to primary care providers, reward primary care providers for good health outcomes in their patient population, and support the expansion of the primary care workforce. All of this SHOULD be threatening to Dr. McCord, because it means more money will be going to physicians that actually improve the health of their patients (also known as "value-based purchasing") and intends to attract more primary care physicians away from the traditionally more highly-paid specialties, like anesthesiology. Some doctors may be completely altruistic, but it's naive to think they don't behave according to financial incentives (and there's research to back that up, too). Dr. McCord is also probably upset about the increased tax on tanning salons in the ACA.
maallen
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:10 p.m.
@Veggie Burrito Gotta love this statement "reward primary care providers for good health outcomes in their patient population." Gotta ask, whose "good health coutcomes" are we going by? The government's definition or the doctor's definition? Hate to break the news to you, but ObamaCare is based on the government's definition which we already know how well of a job they do in Washington! I would rather have control between my doctor and myself and not some bureaucrat in washington to decide what a good healthy outcome is. Heck, because doctors are now going to be paid more for a "good health outcomes" I feel sorry for all those patients who don't have those "good health outcomes" because they will be thrown out into the street so that the doctors can boost their revenue under the government's system. Now do you see the flaw in ObamaCare? And for the record, I would rather see a specialist rather than a jack of all trades when it comes to doctors. I would much rather have a knee specialist/surgeon operating on my knee vs a primary care doctor. Likewise with anesthesioligists. "provisions of ACA will increase Medicare and Medicaid payments" is NOT true. In order to help fund ObamaCare, he is DECREASING payments of Medicare and Medicaid to doctors. That is where Obama is coming up with his so called savings to help pay for ObamaCare.
Jake C
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:56 p.m.
@Matt: You seem to be making a major mistake in confusing "preventative care" (what that article is about) with "Primary Care", which can be both preventative and treatment-based.
Matt mcDonald
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:08 p.m.
Veggie Burrito - Where is the evidence that primary care saves money and keeps patients out of emergency departments? <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558</a> Certainly, ObamaCare..err RomneyCare hasn't decreased costs in Massachusetts.
Belgium
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 6:38 p.m.
I like the part about tanning salons. Too funny.
YpsiVeteran
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 4 p.m.
I think it's disingenuous and misleading to call it "Obama's" Affordable Care Act," and/or "Obamacare," when the bill the president wanted (single-payer system, etc.) was not what was signed into law. The ACA as it exists today is an amalgam of Congressional tinkering. It's as much or more Congress's ACA as it is President Obama's.
Arborcomment
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 12:16 a.m.
It became his law when he SIGNED it. He had the option of not SIGNING it if it did not meet his requirements. Then Congress could go back at it again via locked committee rooms, sweetening the deal to two holding Democratic Senators with non-health care deals (Conrad, Landrieu), drafting the bill without reading it, and a midnight vote.
Maxwell
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 3:59 p.m.
Just more scare tactics from the vested interests whom are milking the current system. The current system might work for them but it sure isn't working me. For profit health insurance is simply the wrong model - PERIOD!
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 3:44 p.m.
This apparent authentic personal editorial contains a gob of false talking points that can be found on multiple Web sites perpetuating alterior political motives. I'd expect much less plagiarism from a supposedly well-educated anesthesiologist, clinical instructor and health care administrator.
maallen
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:53 p.m.
Care to point out the "false talking points"? I expect more from someone than just useless generalization.
Belgium
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 6:39 p.m.
Unless he was given the script before he even wrote the article.
hiphopopotamus
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 3:34 p.m.
Nice try, Koch brothers. I see what you did there. <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fteapartypatriotscpa.com%2FImages%2FD4PCWhoWeAre3.pdf" rel='nofollow'>https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fteapartypatriotscpa.com%2FImages%2FD4PCWhoWeAre3.pdf</a> Docs4patientcare is in fact supported by the Heritage Foundation. Page 2, eight paragraph.
Matt mcDonald
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 7:58 p.m.
@Belgium: We'd rather have patients rationing their own care via what is important to them rather than to politicians working in cahoots with the insurance industry. We'd rather have patients being able to have more choices in the insurance market rather than a three-tiered government plan. We'd rather have physicians who are not conflicted by working for Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) that reward docs for withholding care from patients. We'd rather not have unelected bureacrats on the Indpendent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) not being above Congressional oversight and not deciding that a certain medicines will not be offered because it doesn't meet political goals of rationing care. We'd rather not have extra taxes on potentially life-saving technologies that will make these new drugs and devices less available. Those ideas are hardly partisan unless of course, your party believes that Americans are children who need to be controlled rather than trusted to make their own health care decisions.
Belgium
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 6:44 p.m.
@Matt mcDonald It should be noted that they would rather have the insurance companies continue to ration health care. It's amazing that Sarah Palin's death panels are still making the rounds, but it shows the shear partisanship of people within, if not the organization itself. Yeah, non-partician organizations don't use misleading and heated language.
Matt mcDonald
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 6:23 p.m.
As a member of D4PC (and I am not Matt McCord), I got a chuckle out of this post given it's sheer silliness. D4PC is a NON-PARTISAN organization of physicians who are motivated by the rationing that ObamaCare will institute. We have mainly republicans and independents, but our state chapter even has a few democrats. Sure, we tend to get 'support' from conservatives more than liberals, because the libs seem more intent on destroying our current health care system in favor of some utopian single payer vision, or at least via a transitional program like the PPACA that will obviously not work. Now back to those evil Koch brothers and Heritage. We do form partnerships with like-minded organizations who share our goal to prevent ObamaCare from metastasizing. That 'support' is essentially Heritage (and other groups) taking the time to meet with us and discuss strategy. I wish these organizations would give us money because it is difficult to fund our plans just on physician dues alone. BTW, we are an equal opportunity pain in the rear end. Not only do we go after Obama and the Dems. We also criticize health care insurers, RomneyCare and even the American Medical Association, as our COO Dr Richard Armstrong did recently. <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/1/our-dead-american-medical-association/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/1/our-dead-american-medical-association/</a> Now can we dispense with this silly conspiracy theory stuff that is just plain untrue?
Peter
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 6:02 p.m.
"Well, turns out this is a bunch of lies funded by a bunch of liars, but I'll still cherry-pick the parts I want to believe!"
YpsiVeteran
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 3:48 p.m.
Thanks for the link. I'm disappointed about the connection, but it doesn't change my feeling about how bad certain portions of the bill are. My opinion has been that something has to be done, and there are some good provisions in the bill, like outlawing preexisting condition restrictions and allowing coverage of dependents into their 20's. I'm on the fence as to whether there's enough good to outweigh the bad that Congress stuffed into it. I was hoping that once it gets rolling, changes can and would be made to get rid of aspects that clearly don't work and continue improving what's left.
Jon Saalberg
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 3:26 p.m.
It is pretty apparent that the GOP (and this organization's) ideas will come down to for-profit medical care, and when people are making money from the sick, no really believes that the best interests of patients will take precedence over making a buck. Why is it that the GOP, which generally seems to be the party of conservative religious types who claim to care about their fellow humans, don't value ensuring that every American has health care, whether they can afford it or not? Is Ron Paul's "too bad, no care, you die" attitude really that prevalent in the red tent? If everyone had health care, the poor (yes, Mitt, even very poor) wouldn't use emergency rooms as their medical care, and would be much less likely to seek medical services when they were already suffering dire medical conditions, which almost always are more costly to treat.
Matt mcDonald
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 6:39 p.m.
Wow. What a silly post. You obviously don't live in Massachusetts where Mitt instituted RomneyCare, which is no different from ObamaCare. Did it save money? No. Did it reduce emergency room visits. No, it increased them. Did it increase health insurance or provider choices. No. Will it lead to rationing like ObamaCare will. Yeps. Your notion that profit is somehow bad is so 1970s and neglects what is happening in the other 5/6-ths of the economy. If government ran the mobile phone business, how many innovative products would we have today? I am a physician and if I don't have profit, I go out of business and cannot care for my patients. If I work really hard, I might even pay off my $250K in student loans, send my kids to college and buy a house. If I don't make profit, why would I continue? What we need is more competition and more profit rather than the quasi-socialist system we have now where govt controls 50% of the health care industry and govt mandates (at all levels) increase costs and decrease choice. Some top-down rationing system like ObamaCare will make it so bad, people will be fooled into thinking single-payer works, or is there only option. It doesn't work...unless you define "working' to mean rationing, long waits for surgeries, decreased innovations in drugs & medical device works, decreased insurance options, knocking down the traditional patient-physician relationship, etc. But hey, who cares if you can't get a primary care doc or the newest cancer chemo as long as you have a right to universal coverage!
Joe
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:35 p.m.
We need single payer health care!
YpsiVeteran
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 4:39 a.m.
Matt, of course it will. My belief is that the government should spend more time strictly enforcing anti-trust violations in the media, insurance, pharmaceutical, financial and oil insdustries, and less time trying to create new black holes in which to throw taxpayer dollars. Insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry (and the corrupt politicians they own) are the main problems with the health care "system" we have today. Until their money (and therefore influence) are removed from the equation, nothing will change.
Matt mcDonald
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 6:26 p.m.
Ypsi- And you don't think the same won't happen as the federal government takes further control of health care?
YpsiVeteran
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 4:02 p.m.
5cO, how do we have single payer education? Unless your kids go to private school, the public schools are anything but. We pay taxes to the state, the state sends the money to the schools, filtered through unions and school boards. How is that single-payer?
5c0++ H4d13y
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 4 p.m.
Why? Do we have single payer food? Clothing? Shelter? We have single payer single provider education and look at how happy we all are with the results!
YpsiVeteran
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:35 p.m.
I see a lot of people being critical of the writer here, but no one who offers any facts to back up their claims. Does anyone dispute the facts about the bill stated in the article? If so, step up. I think health care is one of the biggest problems we face as a society, and I strongly believe in the need for reform, but a bill that's been highly politicized and filled with pork isn't necessarily better than what we have now. 159 new agencies? That's obscene. I don't see where the Dr. is against health-care reform, or any indication or proof from anyone that he's some elitist who's concerned about his yacht. Those of you with nothing constructive to offer and no facts with which to dispute what's in the article should go back to American Idol and let the grown ups have a constructive exchange of ideas.
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 10 p.m.
Have at it. A Pulitzer Prize-winning, nonpartisan group of fact checkers who are trained journalists. 31 pages of healthcare-related fact checks. And, yes, tons of misstatements, half-truths, untruths and flatout lies are included from both parties here including from President Obama. Of particular note to me are the gasbags who claim the AHA will require 17,000-19,000 new federal workers for the agencies created. It's flat-out not true. At all. <a href="http://www.politifact.com/subjects/health-care/?page=7" rel='nofollow'>http://www.politifact.com/subjects/health-care/?page=7</a>
Gorc
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:32 p.m.
Just what we need more government in our lives managing a program that will have out of control spending and mismanagement (regardless of party affiliation). Here are some perfect examples of the government's inability to properly manage programs: 1. Social Security (or should I call it the "legal Ponzi scheme") will be insolvent during our lifetime. 2. Medicare is already a financial drain with public funds. 3. Urban and Housing Development - would you want to live in Section 8 or public housing? 4. Education - what percentage of the public is functionally illiterate? I just mentioned a few, feel free to add your own.
hank
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.
Having read many posts on AADC Item 4 seems to be fitting.
Jake C
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:45 p.m.
"Medicare is already a financial drain with public funds. " Of course it is. So is the military, and NASA, and oil subsidies. Government programs aren't SUPPOSED to turn a profit. They're supposed to provide a common benefit to the American Public, funded in general by the taxpayers.
JustMyOpinion
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 4:25 p.m.
Throwing the baby out with the bath water is not a smart solution either. The alternatives to your list are: 1. Elderly people dying of starvation and exposure - you must be too young to remember why Social Security came into being. 2. Watch them all die? Pay for them through higher healthcare at doctors and hospitals? I believe that how we care for the less able is part of what makes us civilized. 3. Put them on the streets? Let them fend for themselves? W e did that - it was really ugly. Again, you must be young or you have never seen what want looks like. 4. That's simply a ridiculous statement all the way around. Point 4 actually argues against your view - our public education is not that terrible. Like all the programs you listed, they could use some help and improvements, but the failures have more to do with government failures in legislature - too much purchasing of law, not enough good law. There are some things which should be the provenance of government and interestingly enough, societies around the world seem to agree your list fits.
JustMyOpinion
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.
I appreciate the the ACA is a special interest laden bill that is not the best solution. I further appreciate the so far, no one has any better suggestions, so the author is just another mouth in the storm complaining. Right now, insurance being for profit is simply not working. Why? Because you end up [paying for health care and someone else's profit demands. It is senseless and is one of the few places where the free market is a disaster. If you pay for your own premiums, if you can afford them, you get the best you can but know you are one serious illness or accident away from being uninsured. At renewal you may expect your policy to be cancelled or premiums raised so high so as to make them unaffordable. As a business owner, the single biggest hindrance to growth is health care. For my money, I would prefer to see Michigan develop a State program that would allow Michigan employers to contract with the State & local hospitals through a State agency to provide health care for Michigan citizens. If people leave the state, they could purchase a rider for travel. Businesses would flock to Michigan if we could offer quality health care at controlled prices - just by cutting out the insurance companies.
maallen
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:25 p.m.
If ObamaCare actually reduced costs and premiums to our health benefits/premiums then I too would welcome it, but the fact is it does not reduce costs and our premiums. It actually increases them. Even in September of 2010 Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Human and Health Services, (you know, the one that is overseeing this new health care law) admitted in a letter to the Association of health insurers that because of the new law premiums will be going UP. "According to our analysis...any potential premium impact from the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions under the Affordable Care Act will be minimal." Of course she uses the word "minimal" to make it sound better, but it's not minimal. And this is the government saying the premiums will be going UP because of the new health care law. What I want to know is whatever happened to it will REDUCE our premiums? Now they are saying it will increase our premiums, but minimally. Do you actually believe the government's use of the word "minimally?" She goes on to say, "Any premium increases will be moderated by out of pocket savings resulting from the law." Out of pocket savings? Really, ummm, what are those again? So much for the government and the politicians saying that this law will reduce our premiums.
tegel
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 2:10 a.m.
@Mick Newsflash: Everyone's premiums are going up with or without the ACA. @Maallen I agree politicians (along with a lot of other people) were harping about the rising cost of health care. The ACA is the result of the political process. The measures needed to truly control costs were a victim of the politics (that's how Republican ideas on creating review boards to develop best practices can be turned into "death panels"). Obviously the long term goal is to reduce costs (or at least the rate of increase), but a few steps need to happen first (see original reply). Econ 101: Create a health system system with the consumer removed from the cost of delivery (insurance), have the providers compensated by the number of procedures performed, allow drug companies to market their wares to doctors with incentives, provide discounts to those drugs to lure the consumer towards the more expensive option, and allow insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Result: Skyrocketing health care costs with decreasing coverage for the general population. Our current system is a mess and evolved by pure accident. Time for anew approach.
maallen
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 10:16 p.m.
@tegel, You understand incorrectly. ObamaCare was ALL about reducing costs. That is why all the politicians kept harping on skyrocketing costs of health care and health premiums. How health insurance premiums were driving companies out of business and/or dropping their health insurance. One only has to look at the failure of Massachusetts experiment on this. As everyone who supports ObamaCare is so quick to point out Massachusetts has a very similar health care law as ObamaCare. Unfortunately, it is well documented in his state that what he implemented is NOT working. What was implemented did not reduce costs, but only increased costs quite considerably. The state of Massachusetts is now implementing price controls. We all know what happens when the government implements price controls. Something we all learned in economics 101.. Even Robert Dynan, chief of the financial analysis unit at the Division of Insurance for the state of Massachusetts stated that the Massachusetts system is a "potential train wreck." The Massachusetts attorney general (a democrat) wrote in a report in 2010 "Can we expect the existing health-care market in Massachusetts to successfully contain health-care costs?" The report concluded, "To date, the answer is an unequivocal 'no.'" ObamaCare has taken things even further than what Massachusetts has done. ObamaCare will cover those employees who works for a company that drops their insurance plan. So, why would a company offer health insurance if the federal government is willing to take them?
Mick52
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:52 p.m.
Tegel, its called the Affordable Health Care Act but its not. Everyone's premiums are going up. They are not going to go down.
tegel
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:25 p.m.
As I understand it, the ACA was never about reducing costs (at least not initially). The first priority was to make it more affordable for those who are not currently covered within the existing system (poor, unemployed, self-employed, etc..). The "mandate" was a requirement of the INSURANCE INDUSTRY in exchange for eliminating the pre-existing condition limitation. The Exchanges are a way of providing choices to people in the system so they are not limited to a one-size-fits-all plan. Once there is a "critical mass" of people covered, then cost reductions can begin as inefficiencies are removed from the system. The best way to reduce costs is to change the "fee for service" model, but this will take some major restructuring. Conservatives have been crowing about the evils of "socialized medicine" since the 60's, while the cost "free market" system have continued to skyrocket. Time for a new approach.
Just_Six
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:04 p.m.
I would also like to know in how many and which health care insurance companies Dr. McCord has invested. Or is a member of their boards. The whole article reeks of special interests.
fjord
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2 p.m.
This is nothing more than viciously slanted propaganda from a mouthpiece of a political organization with a vested interest in high health care costs. That organization fears that if health care actually becomes affordable, its members won't be able to buy that second vacation home in the Virgin Islands. So this paid shill will throw unsupported numbers at you to try to convince you that the Affordable Care Act is a bad idea. My only objection to the ACA is that it doesn't go nearly far enough. We need a single-payer system, and we need it now.
YpsiVeteran
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:45 p.m.
"Any" in my reply above was meant to be "And."
YpsiVeteran
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:43 p.m.
If the bill doesn't go far enough and does not create a single-payer system, and it creates more layers of people sucking money out of the system, then why again is it a good idea? Any from what dark place did you pull "viciously slanted propaganda"? Why is ok for you to personally attack the writer and cast aspersions as to his character with nothing to back it up? Offer some facts or address the issues. The fact he's a doctor doesn't make him a bad guy.
DonBee
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 1:56 p.m.
So far the State of Michigan is on the hook for over a $1 billion dollars per year in increased costs for health care because of the increased mandates in the Reform Act. Funny but that is about what the school aid was cut by last year. We still don't know what the final cost to the state tax payers will be for new unfunded mandates from the Federal government. While my opinion on the act is still neutral, the fact that more Federal mandates hit the state budget without supporting funding, is bad in my opinion.
TanMan
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.
There is one distinct difference between Obamacare and Romneycare - Obamacare comes via federal law and Romneycare comes via state law. The former is unconstitutional and the latter is perfectly constitutional. The state of Massachusetts is perfectly within its right to force its citizens to buy healthcare, but the federal government is not. For example, if the ACA is allowed to stand, what is to prevent the federal government from forcing Americans to buy only American cars in the future?
Mick52
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:48 p.m.
It is not yet deemed as constitutional but it is exactly how it should be done, state by state. Let each state determine what they wish to do with health care. Also I believe in MA the requirement to purchase was such a burden that many people were excused from it.
Jake C
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:41 p.m.
Not really, it's telling the American Public that they can choose to buy a health insurance plan, or they can pay a certain tax fine. Kinda like owning a house -- if you own a home, you can claim a tax deduction. If you have an IRA, you can take a tax deduction. If you own a health insurance plan, you can take a tax deduction. As for your question about forcing Americans to buy American-made cars... sure, they could easily do such a thing by slapping massive Tariffs on imported goods (which the USA has regularly done through its existence... foreign steel, rubber, and sugar, anyone?) It's quite simple. Congress can pass a law. If the Supreme Court finds it Unconstitutional, it's gone. If not, it stands. But if the voters don't like that law that Congress passes, the Congressmen get voted out and the law gets repealed. That's pretty much how Democracy works.
TanMan
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 5:33 p.m.
Jon Saalberg, you are sorely mistaken. The Federal government is not creating it's own hospitals, hiring doctors, etc. They're telling all American's that they must buy health insurance from private insurance companies, and then telling those companies how they must run their business.
Jon Saalberg
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 3:19 p.m.
"If you think it's okay for the Federal government to tell citizens that they have to buy certain products from private corporations" - that is not what the health care reform does - the government provides a service to the American people, which is easily reflected by current government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Unless I am mistaken, our government is not a private corporation.
TanMan
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:14 p.m.
If you think it's okay for the Federal government to tell citizens that they have to buy certain products from private corporations, I think you need to re-read the constitution.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 1:57 p.m.
"The former is unconstitutional . . . " Gee, I didn't know that SCOTUS had rendered its decision in the case. Perhaps you have some inside info? GN&GL
newsboy
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.
We need a real "Single Payer Health Plan" like what was originally asked for by the Obama administration. I'm so tired of healthcare being a haven for rich kids seeking careers. Do you remember a time when physicians practiced healing because they really cared about people and science? The change will be refreshing to see Docs beaten like teachers into submission by the media. Get the money out of healthcare and the true healers will come. At least that's what they tell me about education?
Mick52
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:46 p.m.
Single payer systems will not work in the US. Countries that have it created it in the 1940s when it was not a big issue providing it because health care was basic and now it is much more complex and expensive. And most of those countries are having difficulty in funding.
JustMyOpinion
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:32 p.m.
Nothing is preventing the State from enacting such a program withing Michigan. I think they should. If we wait for the Feds - it will be a mess and too costly.
ypsilanti
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 1:43 p.m.
It is so irritating to continue to hear these "sour grapes" opinions in the total absence of any productive approach to the problem of health care. Republicans and conservatives rejected attempts at solving these problems way back in the 80s and the 90s. They then took control of Congress for an extended period of time and did absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Now they whine and complain that they did not get their way when this bill was enacted. Enough already!
walker101
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 1:13 p.m.
How is resolving problems by creating other programs that have amendments attached that will impose higher taxes to all and create another bureaucratic agency that will fail like the rest of federal agencies? With the exception of the IRS the rest would have been bankrupt years ago if they were in the Public sector, the only reasons they are still here is because they have NO budgets due to at the expense of the American public
Jake C
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:35 p.m.
@Matt: Thanks for linking that. So why didn't a bill like that get passed during the 6 years the Republicans controlled all major branches of the government from '00-'06? I'm guessing the backlash against it would have been so great that many republicans were fearful of losing their jobs. At least the Democrats managed to pass something they believed in, however misguided the final ACA bill might have been...
Matt mcDonald
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 7:49 p.m.
You obviously missed the Docs4PC website that has the outline of what we believe. <a href="http://docs4patientcare.org/prescription" rel='nofollow'>http://docs4patientcare.org/prescription</a> These ideas were proposed in an official bill by Sen Tom Coburn called the Patients' Choice Act (SB 1099) that was blocked by Harry Reid in the Senate, the same Senate that hasn't passed a budget in 3 years and doesn't plan to this year. <a href="http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/?p=Healthcare" rel='nofollow'>http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/?p=Healthcare</a> Hardly "sour grapes" or "total absence of any productive approach to the problem of health care."
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.
to say nothing of the fact that a few very key pieces in this legislation - some of the controversial pieces, in fact - were first proposed by these very same Republicans in the early 1990s.
Maxwell
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 4:09 p.m.
Amen!
keepitbalanced
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 1:05 p.m.
Oh my! Annarbor.com includes an Opinion piece that leans right and you would think prohibition was back! I thought good journalism was offering a platform for both sides to offer their opinion. I thought Ann Arbor was a city that welcomed healthy debate.
JohnMi13
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 7:34 p.m.
So does that mean every opinion piece in the Times, Post or any other newspaper in America relegates those papers to poor journalism?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 1:56 p.m.
"Good journalism" is, by definition, insuring that one's sources are credible and, if possible, telling the reader who whose sources are. Journalism 101. GN&GL
Forever27
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 1:45 p.m.
a false dichotomy is far from "good journalism." Good journalism is getting down to the facts, regardless of whom it may look better/correct. This whole concept of "representing both views" is horribly naive, in that it assumes "both" (meaning, limited to only two) views are equally valid and based in reason. Which is hardly ever the case. So, if anything, your concept of a healthy debate is far from it.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 1:34 p.m.
The issue isn't "both sides". The issue to to make clear who the author of this piece is so that readers might be able to take that into account as they read his piece. It is proper journalistic practice to insure that the reader understand the background of the author of an opinion piece (just look at the Op-Ed page of any major newspaper in the country, whatever their political slant). But, then, that is to confuse A2.com with being a journalistic entity. GN&GL
Diagenes
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 12:53 p.m.
Obamacare is bad legislation. It does not and will not improve patient care or increase the supply of health care services. It will cause rationing of health care servers mostly at the expense of the elderly since they cost the most to care for. As far as the Michigan Health Insurance Exchange is concerned I disagree with the Doctor. Not planning for the potential of Obamacare being upheld in the courts and the relelection of its supporters is foolish on the part of the legislature.The federal government could impose a federal exchange on the state of Michigan if we do not have a exchange in place by the deadline. Republican legislators opposing the establishment of a Michigan designed exchange could end up with the very thing they oppose the most; Federal control of the health insurance market in Michigan. The doctors are right ot oppose Obamacare but their tactics are miss directed. They should use their resources to support candidates in the November election who oppose Obamacare and want to work for real health care reform.
DwightSchrute
Thu, Feb 9, 2012 : 7:01 p.m.
mallen, On second thought, I think you're right. I think we should stick to the status quo, keep the system we got now. Premiums are gonna up regardless, right, so what's the point in trying to solve the problem? Let's stay on par with Africa, India, Indo-asian island nations and nearly half of South America as being the only nations without socialized medicine. Let's continue to wallow at like 43rd or whatever rank we have among INDUSTRIALIZED nations in terms of quality and affordability for healthcare. Yeah, I think you're right. I think Europeans, in spite of their higher levels of happiness in life, have it wrong. Bunch of socialist commies. I can throw socialist and commie in the same sentence and have it mean the same thing, right? Right?
maallen
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.
@sparty, While it is true that the leaders of AMA supports ObamaCare, majority of AMA's members do not. A recent study done in September 2011 showed that only 13% of its doctor members agreed with AMA's support of ObamaCare. To take it even further, many doctors are now disassociating themselves from AMA and 47% of them are saying its because of AMA's support of ObamaCare. Also, did you know that only 17% of physicians belong to AMA? And now to understand WHY ama supported ObamaCare: The answer is that the federal government created a monopoly for the AMA, giving it exclusive rights to publish medical billing codes. Every physician and hospital MUST use these codes. And do you know how much that is worth to AMA? $70 million to $100 million per year! Looks like Obama bought his support for ObamaCare!
Sparty
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 3:58 a.m.
The American Medical Association supports the legislation and actively participated in its development.
maallen
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.
@DwightSchrute As the supporters of ObamaCare are quick to point out, Massachusetts health care law is very similar to ObamaCare. Well then, let's take a look at how well Massachusetts system is working shall we? it is well documented in his state the what he implemented is NOT working. What was implemented did not reduce costs, but only increased costs quite considerably. The state of Massachusetts is now implementing price controls. We all know what happens when the government implements price controls. Something we all learned in economics 101.. Even Robert Dynan, chief of the financial analysis unit at the Division of Insurance for the state of Massachusetts stated that the Massachusetts system is a "potential train wreck." The Massachusetts attorney general (a democrat) wrote in a report in 2010 "Can we expect the existing health-care market in Massachusetts to successfully contain health-care costs?" The report concluded, "To date, the answer is an unequivocal 'no.'" ObamaCare has taken things even further than what Massachusetts has done. ObamaCare will cover those employees who works for a company that drops their insurance plan. So, why would a company offer health insurance if the federal government is willing to take them? So now the government will have to subsidize those worker's premiums too. And where do you think the government is going to get all this money to subsidize the insurance premiums? China? Possibly. Higher taxes on all of us? Yep.
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:56 p.m.
<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/13/jon-huntsman/jon-huntsman-says-irs-will-hire-19500-new-workers-/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/13/jon-huntsman/jon-huntsman-says-irs-will-hire-19500-new-workers-/</a>
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:54 p.m.
<a href="http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/dec/19/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-study-found-massachusetts-lost-180/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/dec/19/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-study-found-massachusetts-lost-180/</a>
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:50 p.m.
<a href="http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/jan/22/frank-lasee/gop-us-senate-candidate-frank-lasee-says-study-pre/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/jan/22/frank-lasee/gop-us-senate-candidate-frank-lasee-says-study-pre/</a>
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:07 p.m.
ummmm. not exactly. more exactly like what Tegel just posted on YOUR new post below.
maallen
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:35 p.m.
@DwightSchrute, You are mistaken. ObamaCare not only provides easier access, but also it has provisions in the bill to DIRECTLY increase supply of healthcare services AND improve patient care. However, what the bill DOES NOT due is lower the cost of these services or the cost of insurance like the politicians promised. When you add benefits to an insurance policy, the rates go up. Economics 101.
DwightSchrute
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 3:49 p.m.
Diagenes, Obamacare is not designed to improve patient care or directly increase the supply of healthcare services. It is intended to provide EASIER ACCESS into the healthcare system for those who have very, very limited ways of accessing insurance if they don't already apply for Medicare/Medicaid. It must be noted that the national AMA supports the AHA.
walker101
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 12:45 p.m.
16,000 will be created for this program, who better to implement this program than the IRS, just like Polosi said, just sign it and read it later.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 12:35 p.m.
So now A2.com has become a shill for a front man of the Heritage Foundation. I guess since this is now an electronic "publication" the traditional journalistic practice of verifying one's source is no longer important. You folks really have become a joke--more concerned with censoring your discussions than you are with actually being . . . you know . . . JOURNALISTS!! Good Night and Good Luck
Arborcomment
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 3:56 p.m.
Pointless, but never dull Ghost, We obviously have a difference of opinion. I feel A2.com did meet the requirements of journalism for an op/ed article and took it a step further by attributing the organization "as described as" by the author. I offered to hand type examples from this week's Washington Post to prove my point. You chose not to accept my offer. You have several options: 1) complain in this forum, which you did. 2) Write your own op/ed, rebutting his claims and pointing out the ties his organization has to another, which by association alone, in your eyes, diminishes his position(?). Doing the latter, would present a problem however, what to put on YOUR tag line for the op/ed? You could go "real" or attempt to use your A2.com handle - the latter is problematic since a real name is probably a requirement. This coupled with the fact that you are using the name, likeness, and signature quote of E.R. Morrow without the permission of his estate would not be - shall we say, good journalism... Glass houses ghost, glass houses...
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.
arbor--you obviously don't get it. Whether that is willful or not only you know. If A2.com want to have a short description that says the author is from "docs4pateintcare"--fine. Then its up to me to find out what that organization is. But that's not what A2.com did, is it. Nope. It bought the doc's description--hook, line, and sinker--of what that organization was and that it is "non-partisan", which it most certainly is not. And with that I surrender the field in what has become an absolutely pointless discusison. GN&GL
Arborcomment
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 2:56 a.m.
Ghost, I'd be happy to type in the article title, author, and provided information in this Sunday's OPINION/EDITORIAL section. Would you like to pick the 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, or 22 word information?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 2:28 a.m.
. . . as if word count is any sort of sign of the accuracy of the description of who the person is. Bottom line: A2.com took the author's word about what his organization was and failed to make certain that it was even close to being true. Not only does this tell us about the "journalism" practiced at A2.com, but it tells us much about the integrity of the author of the piece, as well. Any organization as closely connect to the Heritage Foundation as his is not "non-partisan". GN&GL
Arborcomment
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 11:11 p.m.
And as I hold this Sunday's Washington Post in my hands, I count the words describing out-of house contributors at the end of each op/ed. The word count ranges from 4 to 22.
Arborcomment
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 10:15 p.m.
To their credit, A2.com did use italics and did use the phrase "as described" by the author. This, coupled with being clearly labeled as "Opinion" makes it apparent to me. In addition, A2.com recently had two articles (not opinions) citing "Bridge Magazine" and in the first article stated that Bridge was a "non-partisan" "non-profit" think tank. When it was pointed out that Bridge leadership contained democratic operatives, the second article dropped the "non-partisan" label entirely. Then again, this could be evidence of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 10:08 p.m.
@Belgium: thanks much. @Mick: At the risk of repeating myself for the third time in this conversation: Serious journalistic enterprises, whether the liberal New York Times or the conservative Washington Times (not to be confused with the Post) make every effort to identify the authors of their out-of-house Op-Ed pieces so that the readers know how to weigh the value of what is written in them. But that is to confuse A2.com with being a serious journalistic enterprise, isn't it? GN&GL
Mick52
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:40 p.m.
Really Ghost, c'mon. Like JohnMI13 noted, this is an opinion piece. So is it a "shill" only because it may be conservative leaning? I have commonly thought many opinion articles were hooey so I guess they publish anything. One thing I agree on is this is not journalism. I had a post edited out today too. Can't figure this thing out.
Belgium
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 6:33 p.m.
Dear Mr. Ghost, Having read your responses over the last year, I think we are in complete agreement that the goal of the AA.com is to focus more on censoring our discussions rather than being journalists. I am surprised I was allowed to read your comment but their shilling for the Heritage Foundation is so bold here, that they really don't have a leg to stand on if they deleted your comment. Thanks for continuing to speak out. This .com is a joke. But I read and comment hoping that some good will come of it down the line. It would be great if AA.com put on it's grown-up pants and started "being" what they claim they want to be. Belgium
Audion Man
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 4:42 p.m.
The big blue "OPINION" heading is not very apparent when this headline appears on MLive.com
JohnMi13
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 4:26 p.m.
Who would you classify as a serious journalistic undertaking?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 3:13 p.m.
Nope. Saw that, John. Any serious journalistic undertaking identifies as clearly as it possibly can who the authors are of its opinion pieces. But, then, that presumes that A2.com is a serious journalistic undertaking, doesn't it? GN&GL
JohnMi13
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:55 p.m.
Interesting. I'm guessing you missed the big blue OPINION up there by the title. That would imply the news is allowing opinions from different points of view. Surely someone as well respected as Murrow can appreciate the 'open exchange of ideas.' Unless they are different than yours.
walker101
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 12:47 p.m.
I am surprised you haven't been censored, watch out.
amanda tillotson
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 12:33 p.m.
The Affordable Health Care Act is the produce of political processes, and therefore includes many compromises that keep it from being the best possible legislation. Does that mean that it is better than no legislation? Not at all. Arguments about ACA and the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship come down to the premise that citizens who can afford excellent health care and can have wonderful relationships with physicians whom they choose are the individuals around whom the health care system ought to be constructed. For individuals who are poor, uninsured, or under-insured, the dcotor-patient relationship is structured quite differently. There may simply be no access to medical care outside emergency rooms and clinics where there is no choice of providers and little opportunity to develop "relationships." As for costs, there are both dollar costs and human costs to the failure to provide healthcare for all. The human cost is that we structure our policies around the belief that some individual's lives are worth more than others. Society, in this circumstance, becomes the "death panel" often cited by ACA opponents- we ration health care based entirely on economic capacity. Thus, in America, we have areas where health outcomes for i ndividuals mirror those of third world coutnries. As for dollar costs,consider the cost of lost productivity, emergency room visits, medical bankruptcies, and late-stage care for individuals unable to afford "sanctified" doctor-patient relationships. As the economy restructures , fewer jobs offer good insurance and lower-paid, temporary work becomes the norm for many formerly "middle class" individuals, the inability to obtain health care is likely to spread. Medical professionals are less likely to be immediately affected by this shft, so that their interest in maintaining the status quo is understandable from the perspective of economic self-interest, if not from a
thinker
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 4:04 p.m.
And no one had read it before it was passed!
Mick52
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 9:36 p.m.
This law was passed by a House and Senate controlled by democrats. There were no compromises.
Chip Reed
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 12:14 p.m.
When AnnArbor.com writes in italics that something is "nonpartisan, grass-roots", is that based on what the anesthesiologist says, or some sort of objective view?
Greg M
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 12:12 p.m.
As a father of two healthy kids who spent $17,000 last year on COBRA premiums in the good old "unregulated" state of Texas, I welcome any attempt the Affordable Care Act makes at cost reduction. Heck, even the fiscal conservative Mitt Romney was behind Massachusetts' health care reform, so I have to believe his intent was the same (perhaps I'm horribly naive.) We clearly need to do something, and if the ACA doesn't work out we need to try again until we get it right. I didn't see you offer any alternatives, making me wonder if you think the status quo is fine. If so, see my first sentence.
maallen
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 8:28 p.m.
Again, ObamaCare DOES not reduce premiums or the cost. It drives them up. Even the Secretary of Human and Health Services acknowledged that. When the controversial law was passed it was highly touted as a law that will reduce premiums and costs to the American people. Unfortunately, it does not. Please point out one thing that the CBO has ever been correct on. I am not sure where you are getting that I dislike President Obama. I don't dislike him. I dislike his health insurance law. As of today, I have yet to hear Romney's stance on what was passed in his state under him. But it is well documented in his state the what he implemented is NOT working. What was implemented did not reduce costs, but only increased costs quite considerably. The state of Massachusetts is now implementing price controls. We all know what happens when the government implements price controls. Something we all learned in economics 101.. Even Robert Dynan, chief of the financial analysis unit at the Division of Insurance for the state of Massachusetts stated that the Massachusetts system is a "potential train wreck." The Massachusetts attorney general (a democrat) wrote in a report in 2010 "Can we expect the existing health-care market in Massachusetts to successfully contain health-care costs?" The report concluded, "To date, the answer is an unequivocal 'no.'" ObamaCare has taken things even further than what Massachusetts has done. ObamaCare will cover those employees who works for a company that drops their insurance plan. So, why would a company offer health insurance if the federal government is willing to take them? Nowhere in ObamaCare help reduce costs.
Greg M
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 3:06 p.m.
@maallen You're no doubt as capable at Googling as I. However, the big three for me are as follows. I am glad to see to see the pre-existing condition requirements going away (that's one major reason why I am stuck on COBRA) <a href="http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/rights/childrens-pre-existing-conditions/index.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/rights/childrens-pre-existing-conditions/index.html</a> I am glad all states will have oversight on large rate increases: <a href="http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/costs/rate-review/index.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/costs/rate-review/index.html</a> My old state of Texas for example cannot fight giant annual premium increases, which I saw every year for the past 5 years there. (Here the ACA doesn't go far enough in my opinion.) Lastly, as a self-employed consultant, I look forward to the creation of insurance exchanges. The CBO suggests these will help reduce premiums by 5 - 10%; time will tell of course. <a href="http://cciio.cms.gov/programs/exchanges/index.html" rel='nofollow'>http://cciio.cms.gov/programs/exchanges/index.html</a> I don't know if any of these things will actually help, but I am willing to give them a chance to see. From your other comments it seems like you have a strong dislike for President Obama. That's nice. I am curious what you think Romney would do as President, given that his ideas on healthcare appear quite similar: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Healthcare" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Healthcare</a>
maallen
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:20 p.m.
@ Greg M "I welcome any attempt the Affordable Carre Act makes at cost reduction." Can you please show some attempts that ObamaCare does reduce cost? I too welcome "any attempt" if that is what ObamaCare actually did. But unfortunately it does not. Even in September of 2010 Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Human and Health Services, (you know, the one that is overseeing this new health care law) admitted in a letter to the Association of health insurers that because of the new law premiums will be going UP. "According to our analysis...any potential premium impact from the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions under the Affordable Care Act will be minimal." Of course she uses the word "minimal" to make it sound better, but it's not minimal. And this is the government saying the premiums will be going UP because of the new health care law. What I want to know is whatever happened to it will REDUCE our premiums? Now they are saying it will increase our premiums, but minimally. Do you actually believe the government's use of the word "minimally?" She goes on to say, "Any premium increases will be moderated by out of pocket savings resulting from the law." Out of pocket savings? Really, ummm, what are those again? So much for the government and the politicians saying that this law will reduce our premiums.
Jon Saalberg
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 12:07 p.m.
It would behoove the News to note somewhere that Docs4 PatientCare is a conservative (I would say right-wing) organization, supported by the likes of the Heritage Foundation.
Usual Suspect
Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.
"It would behoove the News to note somewhere that Docs4 PatientCare is a conservative (I would say right-wing) organization, supported by the likes of the Heritage Foundation." Not that there's anything wrong with that. Well, outside of Ann Arbor, at least.
AnnArBo
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 10:56 p.m.
What difference does their affiliation have to do with pointing out bad policy? If it stinks, it does not matter what color the nose is that can smell it.
YpsiBarry
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.
Why can I look up this information in 10 minutes, but Annarbor.com is unable to provide any background on organizations before letting anyone make a guest editorial? Even if the person sending it in is a local resident, you can still run it, but give some context. Is it desperation for new (free) content? Budget cuts impacting editorial staff numbers or quality? ..or is this recurring lapse of context and depth simply due to a complete lack of interest to try and separate journalism, investigative reporting, and original opinions from readers and local residents, from press releases, political marketing, and tabloid news stories?
YpsiVeteran
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 4:07 p.m.
hiphop, thanks for supplying what other posters did not. I find it severely disheartening that there doesn't seem to be any part of the political arena left in this country that's not been sickeningly corrupted.
YpsiBarry
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 4:06 p.m.
YpsiVeteran, A very valid and great question to ask, thanks for doing so. From the group's 'what is d4pc' page: "The list of our strategic partners includes the Heritage Foundation, Galen Institute, Pacific Research Institute, Defend Your Health, Center for Healthcare Transformation, Benjamin Rush Society and the Steamboat Institute." Unfortunately since they are a new organization we don't have any tax records on them or their donors. However they self-report that they receive substantial support from Heritage Foundation. It can be argued that they have a common cause, but you can always keep an eye on them once they file with the IRS this year. Their EIN is 27-1882031 Finally, although the top of many pages include a 'non-partisan' disclaimer, they include at the end of their release the following, which was not a quote by an individual but the group statement: "This meeting will be the springboard for action over the next 12 months, leading up to the elections. If we succeed in voting the Democrats out of office, then we become a resource and partner in creating a new healthcare plan. We cannot fail. The consequences are that profound." Not all Democrats voted for the law, and not all Republicans voted against the bill. Although obviously the parties as a whole leaned different ways, they chose this comment instead of less-partisan alternatives such as 'voting out everyone who voted for it', or 'voting in people who support its repeal'.
hiphopopotamus
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 3:49 p.m.
@YpsiVeteran Here is the source you request. <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fteapartypatriotscpa.com%2FImages%2FD4PCWhoWeAre3.pdf" rel='nofollow'>https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fteapartypatriotscpa.com%2FImages%2FD4PCWhoWeAre3.pdf</a> Third to last paragraph. The Heritage Foundation is a pseudo-science think tank funded by the Koch brothers and their energy billions. They are interested in maintaining the status quo, which is what benefits them and their pocketbooks. Anything and everything they express interest in is vested solely to catch windfall profits on their end. The Koch family routinely flouts the law to and flexes their political muscle by throwing money at various interests all behind the false curtain of philanthropy. They are a disgrace and should be jailed for voter fraud, bribery and extortion. And anyone associated with them should be thoroughly investigated. But alas, this is what we will have to look forward to during the 2012 national election. Don't believe me? Here's one article by Bloomberg that should be enough to sicken anyone <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html</a>
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 3:40 p.m.
Google: "docs4patientcare heritage foundation" They clearly are in bed with one another. Go to the group's website. Its politics are clearly apparent. GN&GL
YpsiVeteran
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
What is your source for the information you state? Where is the proof the organization is politically right, or left for that matter, and funded in part by the Heritage Foundation?
racerx
Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 2:18 p.m.
@Jon Saalberg-are you really asking the News to have ethics? LOL!