This is really interesting and if you’re like me, you’ll have to listen to it a couple times to get it.Especially the part about the IRS. But this may be our way out of ObamaCare.
Featuring Michael F. Cannon
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Obama invited all these doctors to the White House, dressed them in taxpayer funded lab coats, schmoozed them and courted them to get their much needed endorsement for his Health Care plan and now he’s stealthily stabbing them in the back.
Is this what they had in mind when they went to the Rose Garden? I have to wonder if they understood how the government under Obama can and will reach it’s tentacles into their lives and livelihoods.
According to government documents obtained from Obama administration officials, the mystery shoppers will call medical practices and ask if doctors are accepting new patients and, if so, how long the wait would be. The government is eager to know whether doctors give different answers to callers depending on whether they have public insurance, like Medicaid, or private insurance, like Blue Cross and Blue Shield.
But of course, none of this information will be used against any particular doctor:
In response to the drumbeat of criticism, a federal health official said doctors did not need to worry because the data would be kept confidential. “Reports will present aggregate data, and individuals will not be identified,” said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss the plan before its final approval by the White House.
And these doctors are really supposed to believe this nonsense?
If this doesn’t reek of intimidation, nothing does. And I see nowhere in the story that the reporter called the AMA to get their opinion on this. I also have to wonder how the decisions were made regarding what states to target with these “mystery shopper” calls:
[…] administration officials said, a federal contractor will call the offices of 4,185 doctors — 465 in each of nine states: Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia. The doctors will include pediatricians and obstetrician-gynecologists. [In addition to family practice physicans and internal medicine doctors.]
What I find most troubling about this is that these nearly 4200 doctors will be called at least twice to determine if the doctor has different standards of care for private insurance patients versus government insured patients. But 11% of these doctors will be called a third time and this time the caller will identify himself as a govenment employee and will ask whether the doctors accept private insurance, Medicaid or Medicare, and whether they take “self-pay patients.” The study will note any discrepancies between those answers and the ones given to mystery shoppers.
Tell me again that these results will not be used against a physician – tell me again that this information will be kept confidential. Tell me again how Obama wants the support of America’s doctors, most of whom do not belong to the AMA, by the way.
I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never played one on tv, so it took me a couple days and re-reading several times to figure out how this case, Bond v. Unites States, would or could have bearing on the ObamaCare lawsuit.
Thanks to Dena for sending this to me.
In a nutshell, Carol Bond found out there her husband had impregnated her best friend. To exact revenge on her best friend, “Bond placed hazardous chemicals on the homewrecker’s mailbox, car door handles and the like, hoping to injure her now-former friend. All the ex-friend got was a minor burn.” But instead of this being tried as an assault or manslaughter case in a state court, the federal government decided to step in and “charged her with violating a law that was passed under an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons.”
“The court of appeals ruled against her, holding that she didn’t even have the legal right (which we call “standing”) to bring the claim, because only a state could argue that Congress had infringed upon state power. At the Supreme Court, Bond got some help from an unexpected source: the federal government, which agreed with her that she had the right to challenge the law – a procedure that is known as “confessing error,” or admitting that you are wrong. So the Court appointed an attorney (in this case, as it usually does, it chose a former Supreme Court clerk) to argue that the Third Circuit had been correct.”
The Supreme Court stated that the federal government had no right to interfere with a STATE’S RIGHTS issue. ” She argued that she couldn’t be charged with federal crimes because her crimes were the kind of crimes that states should prosecute. Put into constitutional terms, her argument was that when Congress passed the law, it intruded on the rights that the Constitution, in the Tenth Amendment, leaves for the states.”
Last “Thursday, the Court unanimously agreed with Bond and the government that she did have “standing” to argue that the federal government had gone too far. The Court pointed out that the right Bond seeks to vindicate is her own, because she benefits from a federalist (states’ rights) system.”
Now how does all this relate to ObamaCare, you ask?
The SCOTUS has ruled that an INDIVIDUAL has the right to claim a violation of state’s rights because that is the system of government that we live under.
Government mandated health care can be construed as a violation of the Tenth Amendment – a subject that must be left up to the individual states and its citizens to decide – not the federal government.
This case, that the SCOTUS found in favor of Carol Bond and State’s Rights, could very well be a foreshadowing of how they will rule on the ObamaCare case when it finally comes before them.
We can all at least hope.