From video description:
Betsy McCaughey is the Chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, the former Lt. Governor of New York, and author of the book, “Obama Health Law.” On September 21st she gave a speech at Accuracy in Media’s “ObamaNation: A Day of Truth” conference proving with hard facts how the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will inevitably harm America’s seniors.
The America’s Medical Society mentions that some questioning should happen at the debates:
Mr. President, please explain how you plan to maintain the same level of medical acuity and acumen, when, within a mere two years, there will be tens of millions of additional patients added to waiting rooms nationally?
They continue,
The President should have a prepared answer to this key concern of healthcare providers and patients. It’s inconceivable that any question could be more primary to the intrinsic workings of our health systems in the United States. With all other concerns aside, nothing really matters if there are not properly trained physicians available to evaluate and treat the added influx of thirty million new patients.
Let’s assume that the polls are wrong, and that anywhere from thirty to sixty-five percent of practicing doctors will not, indeed, cut back their hours or retire early in the next decade. Let’s answer this question then, honestly, for the President in a stand-alone textbook-style essay response. There is really only one–albeit vague and evasive–answer that the President can give:
“…We will rely on ancillary healthcare personnel [non-physicians: nurses, technicians, physician’s assistants] to step up and do more of the supporting work now done by doctors.”
This is the answer that Mr. Obama’s handlers have likely prepared for him. There is only one problem, however, with this answer: it is disingenuous and factually incomplete.
First of all, the President’s men know very well that the decades-old slow decline in inflation-adjusted income of physicians has already squeezed every ounce of efficiency out of non-physician helpers in the workforce. There is no way these ‘non-M.D.s’ can be asked to simply ‘give more’ without sacrificing quality.
What will really happen in Obama’s new world medical order is that non-physicians will be charged with higher levels of functioning in patient care—assessment, treatment, and even prescription-writing, as more nurse practitioners and (state law depending) others are required to practice medicine without the benefit of a medical training and degree. Essentially, some will be given the equivalent of a medical degree through legislative and executive fiat. In other words, time-honored requirements and benchmarks for medical training will be lowered.
Obama-Care, however, is already crumbling and has two more times to visit the Supreme Court (HHS and the “Exchanges” between states). Here is one state that took the law into their own hands, as Walter William would say, Constitutionally:
Missouri voters dealt Obamacare a significant setback yesterday, approving a statewide ballot measure with an overwhelming 71 percent of the vote.
The vote was the first time citizens had an opportunity to cast a ballot on the unpopular health care law. Missouri’s measure prohibits the federal government’s enforcement of the individual mandate to buy health insurance. The victory sends a strong message about Obamacare in a bellwether state.
A recent survey from the the third largest health care staffing company in the United States shows that most doctors are for either “repeal and replace” or “implement and improve.” These feelings work out towards the candidates in the following way:
A new survey shows Mitt Romney with a commanding lead over President Barack Obama among doctors, with Obamacare helping to sway their votes.
If the election were held today, 55 percent of physicians reported they would vote for Romney while just 36 percent support Obama, according to a survey released by Jackson & Coker, a division of Jackson Healthcare, the third largest health care staffing company in the United States
Fifteen percent of respondents said they were switching their vote from Obama in 2008 to Romney in 2012. The top reasons cited for this change was the Affordable Care Act and the failure to address tort reform.
Leadership style, failure to follow through on campaign promises, unemployment and the general state of the economy were also factors.
“Doctors are highly motivated this year to have their voice heard, particularly after passage of the Affordable Care Act,” said Sandy Garrett, president of Jackson & Coker. “No doubt, the health care law has stirred many passions in the medical community.”
Fifty-five percent of physicians said that they favored “repeal and replace” Obamacare, while 40 percent said “implement and improve”.
A Gallup poll from July found that 46 percent of Americans feel Obamacare is more harmful than helpful to the economy; 36 percent responded the opposite.
Robert Gibbs mischaracterizes the savings and Karl Rove ends his correction with why Republicans are truly trying to save Medicare FOR seniors and how Democrats are spreading THAT money to non-seniors.
This audio is connected with a previous post — intimately:
From Gateway Pundit:
The American Spectatorreported:
Critics of the majority’s decision will say for the foreseeable future that Chief Justice Roberts rewrote Obamacare to save it. Michael Carvin, who argued against Obamacare before the Supreme Court, noted dryly, “I’m glad he rewrote the statute instead of the Constitution.”
Carvin’s summary of the Supreme Court’s ruling was on target: “What the Obama Administration… thought they were doing was completely unconstitutional; what they lied to the American people about was constitutional.… Unfortunately they got away with that bait-and-switch. A fraud has been perpetrated on the American citizenry.”
In oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the administration’s attorneys argued — as they knew they had to — that the mandate was constitutional as a tax. This despite the fact that Democrats passed Obamacare by stating specifically and repeatedly that the mandate was not a tax, including a testy response by President Obama himself to unusually challenging questioning by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in 2009.
As recently as a few months ago, President Obama’s budget director said in a Congressional hearing that the mandate is not a tax, with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying “it operates as a tax, but it is not per se a tax.”
If the bill had been marketed to members of Congress and the public as a tax, it is unlikely that even the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase would have been enough to pass the law, despite the large Democrat congressional majorities at the time. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that “if it had been seen as a tax, they wouldn’t have gotten ten votes, much less sixty.”
As for those Democrats in Congress who have argued, and may continue to argue, that the Obamacare mandate is not a tax, Graham said “they either don’t know what they’re doing, or they lied to us. So this is a huge issue in the fall.” Graham called for every Congressional Republican who is up for election to ask their Democratic opponents whether they support this tax increase; given that Democrats have little choice but to support Obamacare, this is the political equivalent of asking someone if he has stopped beating his wife yet, and a solid political tactic.
This “Tax,” per the Supremes, started in the Senate…
Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution:
Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution:
Since its law, why not? HotAir making a point?:
…First, the government needs to issue a mandate that all households must own at least one firearm. We will need a federal agency to ensure that people aren’t just buying cheap BB guns or .22 pistols, even though that may be all they need or want. It has to be 9mm or above, with .44 magnums getting a one-time tax credit on their own. Let’s pick an agency known for its aptitude on firearms and home protection to issue required annual certifications each year, without which the government will have to levy hefty fines. Which agency would do the best job? Hmmmm … I know! How about TSA? With their track record of excellence, we should have no problems implementing this mandate.
Don’t want to own a gun? Hey, no worries. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says citizens have the right to refuse to comply with mandates. The government will just seize some of your cash in fines, that’s all. Isn’t choice great? Those fines will go toward federal credits that will fund firearm purchases for the less well off, so that they can protect their homes as adequately as those who can afford guns on their own. Since they generally live in neighborhoods where police response is appreciably worse than their higher-earning fellow Americans, they need them more anyway. Besides — gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution, unlike health care, which isn’t. Obviously, that means that the federal government should be funding gun ownership….
