The Wrong Kind of Competition

The November 20, 2010 New York Times notes that ObamaCare will lead to a decrease in market competition for medical services and prices. Here's an excerpt from "Consumer Risks Feared as Health Law Spurs Mergers":

Now, eight months into the new law there is a growing frenzy of mergers involving hospitals, clinics and doctor groups eager to share costs and savings, and cash in on the incentives.

They, in turn, have deployed a small army of lawyers and lobbyists trying to persuade the Obama administration to relax or waive a body of older laws intended to thwart health care monopolies, and to protect against shoddy care and fraudulent billing of patients or Medicare.

Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve -- by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses.

But we'll also see a different kind of competition -- for political favors.

Those with sufficient political clout will get coveted waivers from onerous ObamaCare insurance rules.

Furthermore, once mandatory insurance is imposed nationally, we can expect a frenzy of special interest groups seeking to include their own pet benefits in the mandatory package that all Americans must purchase.

This already happened in Massachusetts after that state passed its "universal health care" system in 2006, based on a similar system of mandatory insurance:

Since 2006, providers have successfully lobbied to include 16 new benefits in the mandatory package (including lay midwives, orthotics, and drug-abuse treatment), and the state legislature is considering 70 more.

These mandatory benefits raise prices for everyone to benefit the politically-favored few. Soon, the other 49 states will experience the pain that Massachusetts residents must now endure.

Even self-described liberal Democrat Morris Panner notes the problem in his November 19, 2010 Washington Post OpEd, "Strangling innovation with red tape":

We are creating so much regulation -- over tax policy, health care, financial activity -- that smart people have figured out that they can get rich faster and more easily by manipulating rules on behalf of existing corporations than by creating net new activity and wealth. Gamesmanship pays better than entrepreneurship.

Instead of fostering competition for improved medical services at lower prices (which is the norm under a free market), ObamaCare will suppress that kind of competition -- and instead spur competition in the realm of political "pull", cronyism, and gamesmanship.

Is this the kind of competition we want?

Update: Welcome WolfFiles readers!

ER Waiting Times

The November 17, 2010 National Post highlighted a growing problem of long waiting times in Canadian emergency rooms under their system of "universal health care".

Here's an excerpt from, "Wait Time Problems Continue to Fester":

Therese de Repentigny, 78, had still not been seen by a doctor for her pain-related complaints when she tried to climb off a gurney to go to the washroom and collapsed. Medical staff finally rushed to her aid, but it was too late, her family said. Within moments, they said, she was dead...

A Quebec patients' group said Wednesday that such waits are anything but uncommon. In Alberta, meanwhile, emergency doctors and senior health administrators were planning to meet Friday for a brainstorming session on how to reduce queuing in emergency wards. Physicians there have said overcrowding is setting the stage for a "catastrophic collapse." Police in Manitoba began a criminal investigation last month into the death of a disabled man who died in a Winnipeg emergency room following a wait of 34 hours.

Similar problems will hit America soon under ObamaCare. Under the Massachusetts system of universal care (on which ObamaCare is closely modelled), ER visits increased significantly rather than decreased.

From the July 4, 2010 Boston Globe:

The number of people visiting hospital emergency rooms has climbed in Massachusetts, despite the enactment of nearly universal health insurance that some hoped would reduce expensive emergency department use.

According to state data released last week, emergency room visits rose by 9 percent from 2004 to 2008, to about 3 million visits a year.

When the Legislature passed the insurance law in 2006, officials hoped it would increase access to primary care doctors for the uninsured, which would improve their health and lessen their reliance on emergency rooms for the flu, sprains, and other urgent care.

As ObamaCare is phased in nationally, we expect similar problems in the other 49 states.

Do we want a Canadian-style "catastrophic collapse" here in the U.S.?

(National Post link via A.B.)

Quick Links: Rhoads, WSJ, Malkin

Jared Rhoads of the Lucidicus Project explains why we should "Brace for chaos in 2014". (If you like what he does, you can support him here.)

The 11/18/2010 Wall Street Journal tells newly-elected state officials to sign onto the Florida lawsui: "Joining the ObamaCare Suit".

Michelle Malkin asks, "Dude, where's my Obamacare waiver?"

Wolf: Inside the Belly of the Beast

In the November 17, 2010 Washington Times, Dr. Milton Wolf describes his journey into the "belly of the beast":

In six months I went from a political outsider to the only Tea Partier our president actually knows. Until recently, I had never been to a political rally, much less been an activist. I frankly found politics to be a repulsive display of backroom deals, dishonesty, personal attacks and smear tactics designed to intimidate normal Americans from joining the process. But everything changed with Obamacare...

(Read the full text of "My journey into the 'belly of the beast'".)

The best quote: "The Tea Parties exist because of the failures of the Republican Party".

Scherz: Meet the 'New' Donald Berwick

Dr. Hal Scherz of Docs4PatientCare urges us to "Meet the 'New' Donald Berwick".

Despite the Obama administration's attempt to put a friendly new face on the rationer-in-chief, Berwick has a long paper trail of advocating government controls over health care. Scherz does a nice job of reviewing Berwick's past statements:

Dr. Berwick has always viewed himself as a "leader" who needs to radically change American health care; he cannot now suddenly alter these years of radical opinions about how terrible American healthcare is by giving a hopeful speech about his plans for Medicare. This is a man who has stated that healthcare by definition involves wealth redistribution, and he intends to make good on his promises.

(Read the full text of "Meet the 'New' Donald Berwick".).

Dr. Scherz isn't fooled by the "New" Berwick. Let's hope America isn't either.

The Compromise Trap

Some Republicans are talking about trying to keep the "good" portions of ObamaCare, and just eliminate the bad portions.

Dr. Jane Orient debunks this fallacy at, "Saving the 'Good' in Healthcare Reform: a Thought Experiment". She discusses the dangers of keeping some of the "popular" provisions such as "stopping insurers from discriminating according to pre-existing conditions", "guaranteed issue", "affordability" provisions, and "performance incentives".

All of these allegedly "good" features merely impose further economic controls, which will eventually harm patients and doctors.

The proper solution is not to try to "save" ObamaCare, but scrap it.

Dr. Michael Hurd on ObamaCare

Dr. Hurd warns us, "You Get What You Pay For".

And it won't be worth much...

Dialysis Blues

From the December 2010 Atlantic: "God Help You. You're on Dialysis" Is this our future?

The 11/10/2010 Denver Post reports a similar story, "ProPublica review: State of U.S. kidney dialysis bleak".

Breaking ObamaCare

In the 11/9/2010 Washington Examiner, Paul Howard describes "How Republicans can break Obamacare before they repeal it".

The tactics he describes are good ones, because they highlight the bad economic effects of ObamaCare.

If coupled with more fundamental moral arguments against ObamaCare, including the idea that health care is not a right, then they could be highly effective. Without such arguments, they may not gain sufficient traction amongst the American people.

The most recent election showed that many Americans want to have a debate at the level of fundamental ideas -- such as the proper role of government in people's lives. Let's hope the Republicans are up to that debate.

New Government Smoking Warnings

The federal government wants to help you better understand that smoking will kill you, with these proposed new warning labels.

The nanny state mentality is the one thing that isn't dead here.

Massachusetts Update

The Massachusetts Medical Society recently released its "2010 Physician Workforce Study".

The results confirm what we've known from prior years -- waiting time to see a doctor remains long. Some key findings include:

* The primary care specialties of family medicine and internal medicine are in critically short supply, the fifth consecutive year of shortages for these specialties.

* 10 of 18 specialties studied have been found in short supply, 3 more than last year.

* High percentages of primary care practices are closed to new patients: 54 percent of family medicine physicians and 49 percent of internal medicine physicians are not accepting new patients.

* Wait times for new patients for primary care continue to be long, with an average wait time of 29 days for family physicians and 53 days for internists.

The head of the MA Medical Society, Dr. Alice Coombs, attempts to argue that the MA "universal" plan has resulted in "improved access to care". But she is committing the standard fallacy of conflating "coverage" with actual care. Patients in MA may have theoretical "coverage" but that's not the same as actually getting medical care.

The MA plan remains a failure. And once the newly-elected Congress is sworn in, they should make a priority of defunding (and eventually) repealing ObamaCare, before the rest of the country experiences the same failure.

Gardner: Obamacare -- Seven Months In

At the Wolf Files, guest blogger Brent Gardner discusses "Obamacare -- Seven Months In".

He notes how mandatory benefits and mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions raises costs for people and destroy the principle of rational pricing for insurance.

Here's an excerpt:

The lowest cost health insurance policy that I could sell (and purchase, at my current age) had a premium of $26 per month before the new law went into effect. Underwriting on this policy was reasonable, and the average person in America would qualify medically. Only one person in twenty could expect to be charged an extra premium, or declined coverage, for excessive pre-existing conditions. The policy would do exactly what it was designed to do: Keep the insured out of bankruptcy due to an extraordinary medical event, a catastrophic sickness or injury.

Today, that policy is not available. The insurance company looked at the new law, all the mandates that were being forced on them, and they decided that their capital was better employed in another line of business. The result was that my favorite low-premium policy was withdrawn from the market.

The least expensive alternative available today is $64 per month, subject to much stricter medical underwriting with a different company. The average slightly overweight American would not qualify for this policy, and one can forget about it if they smoke, have one traffic ticket, or take ANY prescription pills. I know this from first hand experience.

In the simplest of terms, the absolute lowest toll for major medical insurance has more than doubled, and it is more difficult to obtain.

But...there's more!...

(Read the full text of "Obamacare -- Seven Months In".)

Catron: How the GOP Can Stop the Spread of Obamacare

The 11/5/2010 American Spectator published a nice piece by David Catron explaining, "How the GOP Can Stop the Spread of Obamacare".

He shows how a similar strategy worked in Massachusetts after then-Governor Dukakis signed into law their first failed attempt at "universal health care" in 1998.

Catron discusses a 3-part strategy to do the same at the national level. One especially good point he raises is as follows:

In addition to the power of the purse, the new House majority will also have subpoena power that can be used to delay implementation.

They can hold numerous and protracted public hearings, while demanding all manner of documentation from the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). They can summon HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to answer questions about her 2009 gag order to insurance companies and her growing reputation as an enemy of the First Amendment.

It would also be instructive to hear CMS administrator Donald Berwick to elaborate on statements like, "Any healthcare funding plan that is just... must redistribute wealth."

I believe this will have to be a crucially important element.

ObamaCare must be attacked not just on wonkish economic grounds, but at the level of fundamental ideas such as:

"Is it just to redistribute wealth in this fashion?"

"Should doctors be able to practice according to their own best judgment, or should they be compelled to follow government practice guidelines?"

"Does your life ultimately belong to you -- or to the state?"

The election results showed that American voters understood what was at stake -- and they elected the Republicans as their way of saying so.

For Republicans, the big question is whether they will have the political will (i.e., the moral courage) to follow through on their many promises to "defund" and repeal ObamaCare.

Right now the Republicans are talking the talk. Will they also "walk the walk"?

(Read the full text of "How the GOP Can Stop the Spread of Obamacare".)

AARP Cites ObamaCare For Raising Costs

Today's bit-o-irony, "Citing health overhaul, AARP hikes employee costs":

AARP's endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Now the seniors' lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.

In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs...

I wonder if the Obama administration will go after them for spreading "misinformation"?

The Mandate To Repeal ObamaCare

Dr. Beth Haynes pointed me towards this nice video, with the message that the new Congress has a mandate to repeal ObamaCare:



Of course, immediate repeal is extremely unlikely in the face of Obama's presidential veto.

But the GOP can "defund" it. And interestingly enough, this pro-ObamaCare article in the New England Journal of Medicine tells how it can be done:

"The Midterm Elections - High Stakes for Health Policy" (PDF file)

(Go to the 2nd page of the article in the paragraph that begins, "A more serious possibility is that ACA opponents could deliver on another pledge: to cut off funding for implementation. Here is how such a process could work...")

Hsieh PJM OpEd: "GOP: Dance With The One Who Brung You"

The November 3, 2010 PajamasMedia has published my post-Election Day OpEd, "GOP: Dance With The One Who Brung You".

My theme is that I voted for the Republicans because I want them to pursue an agenda of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and defending individual rights -- not the "social conservative" agenda.

Here is the opening:

Republicans are rightfully celebrating their recent successes in the midterm elections, recapturing the House and making major gains in the Senate. But before House GOP leader John Boehner starts measuring the curtains for the speaker's office, he and his fellow Republicans would do well to remember the old proverb popularized by legendary University of Texas football coach Darrell Royal: "Dance with the one who brung you."

In this case, that means: Don't forget who put you in office and why -- namely, the independent-minded Tea Party voters.

Hence, the Republicans should take to heart three key lessons...

Those lessons include:

1) Americans don't want "ObamaLite".
2) Don't mistake this as a mandate to pursue a divisive "social conservative" agenda.
3) Respect the Constitution and the principle of individual rights.

(Read the full text of "GOP: Dance With The One Who Brung You".)

Update: Thanks for the Instapundit mention!

Amendment 63 Wrapup

Unfortunately, Amendment 63 lost last night here in Colorado.

However, similar health freedom measures did pass in Arizona and Oklahoma.

I'd like to take moment to thank my friend Brian Schwartz for his tireless writing and blogging on health care.

And I'd like to thank his colleagues at the Independence Institute for fighting the good fight on this issue.

Rhoads On Republicans

Jared Rhoads of the Lucidicus Project tells conservative, "I've given you a Republican voter... if you can keep me".

Let's hope they listen.

Antos: Confessions of a Price Controller

Joseph Antos explains how government price controls have distorted the market for medical services in Medicare, leading to many of its current problems.

One key quote:

Medicare's experience demonstrates how hard it is for a government agency to set physician payment rates that clear the market. Some prices are too low, requiring patients to wait for treatment or even go without as the demand for those services exceeds the supply. Some prices are too high, unnecessarily raising the cost of Medicare to the taxpayer as physicians respond to the incentive to use more expensive services—even when those services do not produce better outcomes for patients. If the prices are not right, the consequences are unavoidable.

The problem for a government price controller is that he can never know when the price structure is "right." He can know when physicians are unhappy with their prices because they will complain, but that does not necessarily mean that those prices should be raised. He cannot know when prices are too high, because physicians benefiting from that mistaken generosity will not complain. The bias is always to raise prices, not lower them.

Medicare tries to solve that problem by limiting how much average prices may rise using the infamous sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula. That formula sets an arbitrary limit, unrelated to conditions in the market for physician services, on year-to-year increases in physician payment rates. Just as the price controller cannot know the "right" structure of relative prices, he also cannot know the "right" average price or its rate of growth. Again, the only signals come from those who want more, not less.

The inevitable result is that Congress breaks its own price control rules. In an annual rite of political contrition, Congress overrides the cuts in Medicare physician payment called for by the SGR. To maintain the fiction that someday we will take those reductions, they are pushed off to the next year -- compounding both the amount to be cut and the political problem.

(Read the full text of "Confessions of a Price Controller".)

Basically, when government fiat replaces the marketplace, there no longer is any "right" price.

No bureaucrat can possibly know what would have been the price settled upon by thousands (or millions) of actors seeking their own best values in a free market. Hence, all he can rely on is some combination of guesswork, whim, and political favoritism. The current Medicare mess is the inevitable consequence of such government price setting.

(Via @MatthewBowdish and WolfFiles.)

Ralston: Health care queries for candidates

The October 28, 2010 Orange County Register has published the latest OpEd by Richard Ralston of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine entitled, "Health care queries for candidates".

He recommends that voters ask their candidates some of the following:

...[A]sk why all your medical records must be turned over to the government without your permission, as required by the stimulus bill of 2009. The records must be computerized, and if they already are, they must be changed to conform to government guidelines and handed over.

...Ask congressional candidates why the legislation known as Obamacare regulates the sale and purchase of gold.

...Ask the candidates why your physicians will be punished financially if, in treating you, they follow their own judgment instead of new government protocols and "best practices."

...Ask the candidates why they think it is immoral for anyone in the medical arena to make a profit -- except trial lawyers.

Ask the candidates what will happen to the cost of new drugs when, after many years of development and trials to obtain government approval, they must go through yet another lengthy review in a "comparative effectiveness" bureaucracy.

Ask them if a new drug that would help you will be forbidden if it does not help everyone else in the same way.

...Ask them what might happen to terminally ill patients -- many thousands of whom have already died -- while being denied access to these drugs.

(Read the full text of "Health care queries for candidates".)

And if you don't like the answers you get, you'll soon have a chance to let them know.

The Repeal Pledge

An excellent short video (via Black Ribbon Project):




The October 1, 2010 Wall Street Journal has more information at "The Repeal Pledge".

Tea-Minus One Day.

Why I'm Voting Straight-Ticket Democrat on Tuesday

Because I want to support President Obama's agenda and continue his string of domestic and foreign policy successes, including:

1) Getting the federal budget deficit under control

2) Getting our economy back on track

3) Guaranteeing universal health care, while making sure everyone who likes their current health plan gets to keep it

4) Reducing unemployment to near-record lows

5) Getting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and getting our enemies abroad to stop hating us

6) Fighting for the rights of gays serving in the military

7) Changing the rancorous tone in Washington and moving us in a "post-partisan" direction

...Wait, what's that? ...Hang on a sec

[Quick internet search]

...Um, never mind

Two Doctors In The Washington Times

The October 27, 2010 Washington Times carried two good health care OpEds by physicians.

Dr. Daniel Johnson, Jr. wrote, "Patient beware of accountable care organization".

Johnson warns how ACO's being promoted with government help will set physician practice standards and payment incentives that will likely lead first to capitation -- then a single-payer system.

Dr. Mark Neerhof of Docs4PatientCare wrote, "Repeal president's ploy".

Neerhof shows how the insurance regulations will drive private insurers out of business and herd Americans into single-payer, government-run health care.

ObamaCare thus constitutes a two-pronged attack on the freedoms of American patients and physicians.

If Americans don't like this prospect, they should let their elected officials know next Tuesday!

A Humorous Look at ACOs and Medical Homes

The Disease Management Care Blog has posted two short videos on ACOs (Accountable Care Organizations) and "Medical Homes":





For a more serious look at ACO's, read Dr. Beth Haynes' recent post at the Black Ribbon Project.

Schwartz: Amendment 63's Foes Only Want You for Your Body

The October 26, 2010 Huffington Post has just published Brian Schwartz's latest piece, "Amendment 63's Foes Only Want You for Your Body".

Here is the opening:

Should Colorado mandate that each car owner buy a comprehensive lifetime vehicle warranty? By the logic of a common argument against Colorado Amendment 63 and for mandatory medical insurance, the answer is "Yes." Mandatory insurance treats your body as a means to political ends, rather than respecting your rights as an individual.

He goes on to show how the mandatory insurance in ObamaCare is both a form of exploitation as well as a restriction of basic freedoms.

(Read the full text of "Amendment 63's Foes Only Want You for Your Body".)

Quick Links: MLRs, Employers, Alternatives

David Hogberg at the 10/21/2010 Investors Business Daily looks at the proposed new "Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rules and asks, "Will New ObamaCare Regulation Reduce Insurance Competition?"

This 10/24/2010 AP story reports, "Employers looking at health insurance options".

As those first two stories indicate, ObamaCare rules will slowly strangle the current insurance market, thus herding Americans into the state-run "exchanges". The inevitable result will be a "single-payer" government-run system.

John Goodman at NCPA offers some positive alternatives to this bleak future in his 10/25/2010 post, "A Radically Different Approach to Health Insurance"

My Latest in Denver Post and CapMag

Two of my health care pieces have just been published:

The October 23, 2010 Denver Post has published "The 'Right To Health Care Choice'is right for Colorado".

Here is the opening:

Suppose the government required everyone to purchase their meals from state-run restaurants. The government would also select the menu items. If you liked spinach but their vegetable choice was broccoli, then tough luck. Everyone would also have to purchase dessert, whether they wanted it or not. And if some customers couldn't afford the overpriced meals, you'd have to cover their tab.

Most Coloradans would be outraged at such a violation of their basic freedoms. But this is precisely what ObamaCare does with health insurance -- and which the "Right To Health Care Choice" Initiative (Amendment 63) would help prevent.

(Read the full text of "The 'Right To Health Care Choice'is right for Colorado".)

Also, Capitalism Magazine has just posted "A Medical Doctor Explains the Pros and Cons of ObamaCare: An Interview with Dr. Paul Hsieh".

(Thank you, Joshua Lipana, for that nice interview!)

Hsieh/Armstrong on Personhood and Health Choice

The October 22, 2010 Denver Daily News published the OpEd by Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong, "A62, A63 Reveal Ideological Rifts". In this piece, they discuss Amendment 62 (the "personhood" measure) and Amendment 63 (the Health Care Choice measure).

They discuss why a proper approach to individual rights leads them to oppose Amendment 62 and support Amendment 63. In particular, they note:

Both the left and the religious right, then, express contradictory views about liberty and individual choice. They support it in some cases, but not in principle. Why is that?

The left rejects America’s founding ideal of liberty as each person’s freedom to pursue his own life and happiness using his own property. They regard rights as entitlements to goods and services provided by others, not freedoms to think and act without coercive interference.

...The religious right claims to support individual rights, but its conception of rights is little more than sectarian dogmatism. Rights are whatever God declares them to be, on this view.

By contorting some Bible passages and ignoring others, advocates of Amendment 62 claim that newly fertilized zygotes -- even before implantation in the uterus -- must be declared persons with full legal rights. By similar methods, they ignore the Bible's overt hostility to individual rights and capitalist values.

The consistent, secular view of individual rights is opposed to both the entitlements of the left and the dogmatism of the religious right. Rights, on this third view, define the individual's proper sphere of freedom in a social context. They enable each person to act by his own judgment and for his own life and happiness.

Such rights are based on the facts of man's rational nature, not the whims of the majority or the arbitrary commands of God. They apply equally to every person, to individuals living in society, as opposed to an embryo or fetus entirely contained within a pregnant woman’s body.

(Read the full text of "A62, A63 Reveal Ideological Rifts".)

Wolf: Obamacare's Unkeepable Promises

Dr. Milton Wolf has a new OpEd in the 10/22/2010 Washington Times, "Obamacare's Unkeepable Promises".

In it, he debunks all of the promised benefits, including cost savings, "you can keep your own insurance", "no rationing", an open legislative process, etc.

Read the whole thing.

I doubt the President will take Dr. Wolf up on his invitation for a chat. But it never hurts to ask!

You can read more from Dr. Milton Wolf at his blog, The Wolf Files.

Killing Marcus Welby

Scott Gottleib discusses how Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) will destroy independent small private practices and lead to indirect rationing.

Otis On WA Regulations

Maryallene Otis of Lynwood, WA responds to her state regulators forcing insurers to sell child-only policies.

This is her LTE in the October 19, 2010 Seattle Times:

State regulator orders Regence to reinstate child-only plans

Profit motive more dependable than government bureaucrats

State insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler has ordered Regence BlueShield to resume selling child-only insurance policies ["WA orders Regence to resurrect child-only plans," seattletimes.com, Oct. 15].

Regence (and insurance companies across the country) recently made the sound business decision to stop selling these policies because of the new federal law forbidding them to exclude children with pre-existing conditions.

To force a company to sell policies without considering pre-existing conditions, means that what Regence would be selling would not be insurance. Insurance takes risk into account. Kreidler is forcing Regence to make a bad business decision, on which they cannot possibly make any money.

Government is strangling the business of medicine and the business of medical insurance with more and more regulations. Then, when the regulations create a disaster, bureaucrats vilify medical professionals and insurance companies for wanting to make a profit.

Capitalism, the political system that protects individual rights to property and contract, is the moral and practical way to provide goods and services. I would far rather depend on the profit motive than the whim of a bureaucrat.

-- Maryallene Otis, Lynnwood

I especially liked how she linked the specific regulatory issue to the broader theme and proper definition of capitalism.

Thank you, Maryallene, for speaking out in Washington state!

Schwartz and Novack on Amendment 63

Brian Schwartz debunks the latest anti-A63 alarmists at the 10/18/2010 Huffington Post: "Amendment 63 vs. the Unlicensed Vampire Alarmists"

Dr. Eric Novack discusses in the 10/14/2010 Boulder Daily Camera why "Amendment 63 is good for Colorado".

Zawistowski: Lessons Learned From The ER

Stella Zawistowski tells her "Lessons learned from the ER".

Not Just Bad PR

The Obama administration has been spending millions of dollars on advertisements to promote the alleged benefits of ObamaCare. (Via David Catron.)

But as the 10/15/2010 Wall Street Journal notes, "Voters on ObamaCare: Informed and Opposed". Many Americans actually understand that ObamaCare will hurt them by raising their costs and limiting their freedoms -- and they don't like it.

The problem with ObamaCare is not just bad PR.

ObamaCare Unravelling

The October 8, 2010 Investors Business Daily discusses "The Unraveling Of ObamaCare".

As more companies and special interest groups get waivers from ObamaCare rules, it highlights two facts:

1) The rules are bad.
2) Those with political pull will get special treatment.

At best, this will create rule by men, rather than rule by law. At worst, this is a recipe for widespread political corruption.

Maybe the entire country should request a waiver from ObamaCare...

Legal Scholars On Latest ObamaCare Ruling

Hadley Heath has a nice round-up of various legal scholars' reactions to the latest court ruling allowing the multi-state lawsuit against ObamaCare to go forward.

(Via David Catron.)

Carrots and Sticks for Electronic Medical Records

The AMA has summarized the various financial carrots and sticks that the government will wield against doctors to get them to adopt electronic medical records (EMRs, also known as EHR for "electronic health records").

The laws require "meaningful use", to prevent doctors from buying the machinery but just letting it sit on the shelf. Initially, the inducements are in the form of carrots (rewards), but later they turn into sticks (penalties):



These EMRs will be used to track physician compliance with "practice guidelines".

When Big Brother watches your doctor and decides whether or not your doctor will get paid, it could lead to a chilling effect on physicians' ability to use their best independent judgment.

Pro Amendment 63 Commercial

Let's hope this doesn't become a reality:

Quick Links: Costs, Rebellion, Greeks, Wolf

Dr. Beth Haynes of the Black Ribbon Project discusses, "The Real Reason Medical Costs Are Rising".

Jeffrey Anderson describes rising discontent within the medical profession against ObamaCare at, "Battling ObamaCare: The Health Care Industry Starts to Awaken".

The Greek health care system announced the following gruesome policy:

...[T]he nation's largest government health insurance provider would no longer pay for special footwear for diabetes patients. Amputation is cheaper, says the Benefits Division of the state insurance provider.

And on a personal note, last week I had the pleasure of meeting in person Dr. Milton Wolf, who coincidentally happened to be attending the same medical conference as myself. We had a nice chat about his activities and goals. All I can say is that it's too bad we can't clone 50 more of him.

(But then, Mizzou alumni might not want that many more Jayhawk fans roaming the earth...)

Catron: The Criminal Intent of ObamaCare

David Catron warns about a provision of ObamaCare that undermines the legal rights of physicians and a core principle of our justice system.

Read his piece, "The Criminal Intent of ObamaCare".

Preventing You From Spending Your Own Money

Dr. Eric Novack discusses how the "no cost sharing" provision in ObamaCare will drastically curtain your ability to spend your own money for some legal health services.

Read his 9/23/2010 piece, "ObamaCare: The Used Car Contract of Lawmaking".

(Dr. Novack is the author of the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act, which is a 2010 ballot initiative similar to Colorado's Amendment 63.)

Update: Some readers commenting on Dr. Novack's piece have asked about the "no cost sharing" rule and whether that amounts to banning spending your own money (as opposed to merely obliging insurers to provide certain services "for free".

Here's something I wrote earlier on this topic, from "ObamaCare: Tightening the Noose Around Private Health Care":

Similar restrictions against "cost-sharing" or out-of-pocket spending are already established policy for Medicare -- the federal government’s "universal heath care" program for the elderly.

Under current federal law, if a doctor accepts Medicare patients (i.e., he is a "participating physician"), he must accept the payment set by Medicare. If the doctor can't make ends meet on the low Medicare fees, then that's his problem. Medicare rates are currently so low that many physician practices would go under if they had to rely solely on Medicare -- which is why many doctors currently limit the number of Medicare patients they are willing to accept.

But suppose a patient tells his doctor, "I know that Medicare doesn't pay you enough to cover your costs of performing the surgery which you and I both agree is necessary. I'll pay you extra in addition to Medicare to get it done."

By law, the physician cannot accept this offer. If he did, he could face stiff fines (or possibly jail) for illegal "cost-sharing." As long as he is a "participating physician" in Medicare, he may not accept any out-of-pocket money from his patients for covered Medicare services.

So a combination of "no cost sharing", pending government price controls, and physician exclusion from "qualified plans" if they accept money from patients creates the problem of patients being effectively prevented from spending their own money.

It's already the case for Medicare patients. As ObamaCare is implemented, this will likely affect millions of non-Medicare patients as well.

Lawsuits Update

As many know, a federal judge in Michigan has just upheld the Obamacare insurance mandate.

At the Volokh Conspiracy law blog, Ilya Somin offers his initial critique. So does Randy Barnett.

As many observe, this issue will likely end up being decided in the US Supreme Court.

If you're interested in more information, the Health Care Lawsuits blog and their main website look like promising sources.

Schwartz Rebuts Semro on Amendment 63

The 10/6/2010 Huffington Post carried Brian Schwartz's latest piece on Amendment 63, "Colorado Amendment 63: Freedom Is Too 'Haphazard' for Bell Policy Center".

In it, he rebuts the various objections raised by Robert Semro of the Bell Policy Center in Semro's earlier Denver Post OpEd, "No on Amendment 63: It won't hold down health care costs".

One excerpt from Schwartz's piece:

Semro also does not like Amendment 63 because it would "tie the hands of policymakers who want to reduce costs by expanding health care coverage in Colorado." Yes, and this is a good thing. "Reducing costs by expanding coverage" is code for turning health insurance into a tax, or compulsory charity. Mandatory insurance doesn't mean just any kind of insurance, but policies loaded up with mandated benefits and minimum copayments and deductibles. All of these drive up premium prices and force many people to buy more insurance than they'd otherwise want. This "cost-shift" or hidden tax is larger than that from the popular scapegoats, the uninsured.

Semro continues with Orwellian Newspeak. Amendment 63 would prohibit government from forcing you to buy an insurance plan designed by politicians. It also protects your right to pay cash for medical care. But Semro claims Amendment 63 "will obstruct the ability of Coloradans to make decisions about their health care." Nonsense. Amendment 63 does just the opposite. It obstructs the ability of the Colorado politicians and bureaucrats to make decisions about your health care.

(Read the full text of "Colorado Amendment 63: Freedom Is Too 'Haphazard' for Bell Policy Center".)

Thank you, Brian!

Lawsuits Update

The September 29, 2010 Christian Science Monitor discusses the status of the various anti-ObamaCare lawsuits in "Lawsuits to undo key parts of health-care law move forward, so far".

Some excerpts:

State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in federal district court in Pensacola and joined by 12 other states via their attorneys general. In May, four states via their governors and three states via their attorneys general joined Florida's suit. Also joining the suit were the National Federation of Independent Business and two individuals from Florida and Washington State.

Mr. Cuccinelli's suit was filed on behalf of Virginia alone in US district court in Richmond. Cuccinelli, a Republican, has championed conservative causes since taking office in January...

Further, the states claim that Congress is commandeering traditional state powers under the 10th Amendment, such as regulating intrastate insurance programs.

To bolster their 10th Amendment claims, Virginia and five states in the Florida suit -- Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Utah, and Arizona -- created conflict between federal and state laws by passing laws prohibiting government from compelling their citizens to purchase health insurance.

More information in the full article.

The October 3, 2010 Washington Times has more information on the separate voter initiatives in CO, AZ, and OK to exempt residents from the ObamaCare mandatory insurance requirements. Read more at "Voters in 3 states to consider opting out of 'Obamacare'".

Update: USA Today has its own summary, "Lawsuits over health care law heat up".

Milton Wolf on Election Day Tea Party

Dr. Milton Wolf promotes the Election Day Tea Party:



As the good doctor says, "The quickest way to stop the Obama big-government agenda is to pry the gavel out of Nancy Pelosi's hand."

More information at the official website.

More Commentary On Amendment 63

As the election draws closer, we've seen more commentary on the proposed Amendment 63 to protect health care choice in Colorado.

The September 30, 2010 Salida Mountain Mail published Linda Gorman's piece, "Amendment 63 protects right to spend money on your own medical care".

The October 3, 2010 Denver Post has a point-counterpoint segment on Amendment 63 including:

"Yes on Amendment 63: Stand up to D.C. on health care choice" by Jon Caldara and Linda Gorman.

"No on Amendment 63: It won't hold down health care costs", by Bob Semro.

The October 3, 2010 Boulder Daily Camera published Brian Schwartz's piece, "Amendment 63: Refuting the opposition".

Interview with Free Enterprise

Joshua Lipana interviewed me for the Phillipines-based Free Enterprise periodical. Thanks to Joshua for the opportunity to spread free-market health care ideas to his readers in the Phillipines!

Read the interview here. Here's the PDF version.

Hsieh PJM OpEd: "2010: Dawn of the Terran Empire?"

PajamasMedia has just published my short, tongue-in-cheek piece, "2010: Dawn of the Terran Empire?"

My theme is that we must have entered a bizarre political parallel universe if Democrats are now running on how they voted against universal health care, and France is now telling us that we're being too soft on our enemies.

Enjoy!

Why the MLR Rules Matter

The MLR (medical loss ratio) rules of ObamaCare are showing up more frequently in the news.

In the 9/29/2010 Forbes, Avik Roy explains "How ObamaCare May Disrupt Your Health Plan".

The 9/30/2010 Wall Street Journal shows how McDonalds insurance for employees may be the first casualty at, "McDonald's May Drop Health Plan".

Although many commenters call these "unintended consequences", there are undoubtedly many single-payer advocates who are cheering the demise of private health insurance -- so as to eventually force Americans into a monopoly government plan.

The Lobbying Heats Up

The 9/27/2010 Denver Post reports that, "Christian Scientists push for health insurance that covers spiritual care".

This is a completely predictable development. When the government specifies what benefits shall (or shall not) be covered by insurance, special interest groups will lobby ferociously to have their particular pet benefit be part of the mandatory package.

The result is that ordinary people are forced to pay extra for "benefits" they may neither need nor want in order to satisfy those with the greatest political pull.

As I discussed a few months ago in the 3/24/2010 Denver Post, this turns medicine into a permanent political football.

Quick Links: IT Consequences, MLR

The 9/27/2010 Wall Street Journal health blog discusses how, "Computerized Order Entry System Has Unintended Consequences". Expect to see more of this as physicians are forced to adopt government-approved health IT systems.

Why should you care about MLR's ("medical loss ratios")? John R. Graham of PRI discusses why in, "ObamaCare Will Dramatically Reduce Choice in Private Insurance".

More Mammography Brouhaha

The question of the value of screening mammography is in the news again.

Here is one typical article from the 9/22/2010 New York Times, "Mammograms' Value in Cancer Fight at Issue".

The abstract of the original paper at the New England Journal of Medicine is here at, "Effect of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Mortality in Norway".

Of the various commentary I've seen, one of the best has been from the 9/23/2010 Wall Street Journal Health Blog, "Study: Mammograms Save Lives — Just Not As Many As Expected".

As NEJM co-author Marvin Zelen notes in the WSJ piece:

Zelen says women need to weigh the benefits of screening (a lower chance of dying from breast cancer, at least in this age group) against possible risks. As an accompanying editorial notes, those include false alarms and unnecessary biopsies, as well as the "less frequent but more worrisome" problem of needlessly treating cancer found via mammogram that never would have amounted to anything if it went undetected. If you take the approach of "minimizing the maximum risk," as Zelen says, that suggests being screened.

But "we have to make decisions about our health on the basis of what's important to us," he says.

That last point deserves highlighting.

Patients must have the freedom to decide for themselves (in consultation with their doctors) whether they wish to undergo certain tests and procedures -- or if the risk aren't worth it (in their opinion). Those decisions are intensely personal and no government agency can or should make those decisions for us.

Hence, people should be left free to spend their own health care dollars according to their own best judgment for their benefit based on their priorities and values.

This precious freedom will evaporate as ObamaCare is implemented. Instead of patients and doctors making these decisions according to the patient's values, they will be made by central committees enforcing "practice guidelines" dictated from above to doctors working in government-sanctioned "Accountable Care Organizations" and "Medical Homes". These decisions will be based on the government's values, not the patients'.

Do Americans really want the government making these decisions for them?

Haynes on the Doctor-Patient Relationship

Dr. Beth Haynes of the Black Ribbon Project has a great post on how ObamaCare will destroy the doctor-patient relationship.

Nor is this some "unintended consequence". Instead, it is the explicitly desired goal of men like Donald Berwick.

Read the full text of, "ACA intentionally undermines the Doctor-Patient relationship".

Faith-Based Propaganda

The Obama Administration further entangled religion and politics in this latest attempt to salvage his deeply unpopular health care plan.

Sarah Kliff at Politico reports, "Obama seeks divine intervention on health care":

With nothing else working, President Barack Obama is asking religious leaders to help him sell the public on health care reform.

POLITICO listened in to an Oval Office conference call Tuesday, where Obama and top administration officials, beseeched thousands of faith-based and community organizations to preach the gospel on new insurance reforms, chiefly the Patients' Bill of Rights.

"Get out there and spread the word," Obama told leaders from across the religious spectrum on the conference call, organized by the Health and Human Services Center for Faith-Based and Community Partnerships.

(Read the full text of "Obama seeks divine intervention on health care". Link via David Catron.)

His appeal to faith is not surprising, especially given that fact-based analysis of the law increasingly shows that "Obamacare is even worse than critics thought" (Washington Examiner, 9/22/2010).

Two quick comments:

1) I support the principle of separation of church and state. Hence, I think it's inappropriate for politicians of either major political party to attempt to enlist any kind of official religious backing (or opposition) to government policies.

2) I am also a supporter of abortion rights.

Hence, with respect to the Examiner OpEd, it is true that one serious problem with ObamaCare is that it compels people to pay for others' elective abortions against their will. But this is just an instance of the more fundamental problem -- namely that ObamaCare compels people to pay for all sorts of medical procedures (such as heart surgeries and colonoscopies) for others against their will.

Hennenfent on Death Panels

Dr. Brad Hennenfent has updated his blog post, "The 'Death Panels' are Real and They Exist Now".

He notes that the stealth rationing occurs due to government policy and "crony capitalism" (i.e., insurance companies acting as proxies for the government).

The quote by Dr. Kevin Pezzi on the problems of the government-run VA hospital system is especially worth reading. Here's an excerpt:

Anyone who values their life, or the lives of loved ones, should fear any healthcare system controlled by the government because the government excels at creating massive bureaucracies, such as those in VA hospitals, in which employees who are not doctors can overrule physician orders. No President or Congressman would have the guts to personally tell a doctor what he can and cannot do, but the need of politicians to control us is so strong that they create cold and uncaring bureaucracies to do the dirty work for them.

Who is on the short end of the stick when politicians ration care? Patients, who pay for that rationing with more suffering and an increased risk of death. President Obama tried to dismiss the notion of government "death panels" by claiming that he would create no such bureaucracy. He doesn't need to do that to achieve his objectives because every government bureaucracy in which doctors can be overruled by people who don't know what they are doing is functionally a death panel even though it is never labeled as such.

Quick Links: Avastin, Taxes, Thuggery

The FDA has delayed its decision on whether or not to ration the cancer drug Avastin until after the November elections.

ObamaCare levies a new 3.8% tax on the sale of your home.

Brian Schwartz covers the upcoming state-level thuggery here in Colorado over some insurers' plans to stop offering certain types of plans due to costly government regulations.

FIRM's Facebook Page

I recently created a fan page on Facebook for FIRM. If you're a fan, please spread the word about free market medicine by hitting the "like" button!



Also, you can find FIRM on Twitter here: @WeStandFIRM.

Zawistowski On Free Market Health Reforms

The Fall 2010 issue of The Objective Standard features an article on free market health care reforms by Stella Daily Zawistowski, "A Prescription for America's Health Care Ills".

Her article:

Compares and contrasts the cost, quality, and accessibility of government-regulated, rights-violating medicine with that of free-market, rights-respecting medicine and finds, once again, that the moral is the practical.

The introduction is available to all.

Subscribers have access for the full text. Interested non-subscribers can purchase the PDF for $3.95.

Armstrong Interviews Cassell

Ari Armstrong attended the 9/12 Tea Party rally in Washington, DC, and interviewed several participants, including Dr. Jack Cassell.

Casell is the Florida urologist who made national headlines by posting a sign on his office door after ObamaCare had passed saying, "If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere".

The short segment with Dr. Cassell starts at 0:29:



In particular, Cassell notes that ObamaCare makes it impossible for doctors to uphold their Hippocratic Oath to their patients. And it will lower the life expectancy of the American people. He also expects that it will be "defunded", then eventually repealed.

Let's hope he's right.

Catron on Accountability

David Catron writes on "Accountability and Its Discontents".

He examines some of the leading theories by leftist pundits as to why America has turned so sharply against the current administration's policies:

...[A] variety of lesser liberal outlets have used their columns and posts to vent frustration with the electorate's inability to see that the current regime has been a success. Why, they ask, is the public not grateful for the "historic" health reform bill, the stimulus package and Wall Street reform? What, they demand to know, are the voters not getting?

Catron notes that they are blaming the voters -- for instance, blaming it on voters' seeming madness ("cognitive dissonance"), stupidity, or racism.

Of course, they seem to not even consider the possibility that the voters' concerns are justified -- that Americans don't want their freedoms infringed, that they don't want their hard-earned money spent on boondoggle make-work "stimulus" projects, and they don't want to support a system that punishes people who live responsibly, create values, and sustain the economy while rewarding those who live irresponsibly at others' expense.

And most critically, they don't want to be held accountable for the failures their policies have caused -- so they instead blame the voters for not "getting with the program".

Come November, we'll see another round of accountability as voters make their preferences known loud and clear.

Whether the "progressives" learn from that reality-check will be up to them. But given their bizarre "blame-the-voters" mindset, I won't hold my breath waiting.

OECD on Canada

Canada's socialized health care system is in trouble. Yes, I know you're all surprised.

Here are more details from the 9/14/2010 National Post, "OECD Prescription".

(Via Monica Hughes.)

Sissel Fights Back

Matt Sissel explains, "Health-care reform: Why I'm suing to get back my freedom" in the 9/13/2010 Christian Science Monitor.

Here's an excerpt:

I'm a healthy young man fresh out of art school. I'm starting a small business, based in Iowa City, as a fine artist specializing in realistic drawing and painting. I have limited means and struggle to achieve my modest dreams. Every penny counts in the service of my career goals, but the federal government is intent on slowing down my progress and the progress of every other productive man and woman in this country in its drive to socialize the American health care system.

As a business person, I intend to cover my own medical expenses, and I want the freedom and flexibility to do my own budgeting, including setting aside money for medical needs.

I don't want the federal government dictating my personal financial decisions.

It can't even run its own budget!

The closing is especially nice:

I proudly served our country in the Iowa Army National Guard as a combat medic, spending two years in Iraq and eventually being awarded the Bronze Star. I mention that experience in order to drive home this point: While I am proud to have served my state and my country as a volunteer, I object to being conscripted into a federal health-care program that is at odds with basic constitutional principles of individual rights and limited government.

I see my lawsuit as a battle for my liberty -- my freedom to live out my life to the fullest without costly, one-size-fits-all dictates from the government. I am fighting the command-and-control health-care plan in order to safeguard the health of our Constitution and the freedoms it protects for me and for all Americans.

Thank you, Mr. Sissel, for standing up for your rights!

Hsieh PJM OpEd: Get Ready For Your Health Care 'Re-Education'

The September 14, 2010 PajamasMedia has just published my latest OpEd, "Get Ready For Your Health Care 'Re-Education'".

My theme is that the government has started an Orwellian "re-education" program to get the public to embrace ObamaCare -- and Americans must respond by teaching our politicians a lesson this November.

One excerpt:

In effect, the government is saying: "Let's pretend we never said ObamaCare would lower costs -- even though that's how we sold it to the public." "Let's push patients into restrictive health plans -- and call it a 'medical home.'" "Let's label it 'misinformation' when insurers tell the truth about how our laws raise their costs -- and then punish them if they complain about it."

And as the problems of ObamaCare deepen, we can expect such "re-education" efforts to intensify.

(Read the full text of "Get Ready For Your Health Care 'Re-Education'".)

And thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the Instapundit link!

Thuggery Updates

Betsy McCaughey warns us, "Get set for big premium hikes". (NY Post, 9/13/2010).

Michael Barone notes, "Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare". (RealClearPolitics, 9/13/2010).

The 9/13/2010 Wall Street Journal explains that "Sebelius Has a List". As they note:

What Ms. Sebelius really means is that the government will prohibit insurers from doing business if reality is not politically convenient for Democrats.

Sebelius' approach is the federal government's latest version of the old saying, "The beatings will continue until morale improves".

Wolf is Back!

Dr. Milton Wolf is back and he's blogging up a storm!

Here's his latest, "Presidenting is Hard"

Sarrionandia Reports From The UK

UK resident Roberto Sarrionandia reports on his experience with the British National Health Service (NHS) when he suffered bad burns.

Basically, his experience was a roller-coaster of excellent and terrible care. In many ways, it's like the government (public) schools -- maybe you'll get a good teacher for your children, and maybe you won't. But you don't really have a say in the matter and your future is essentially up to luck.

Read the full text of his post, "A Healthcare Anecdote".

Quick Links: Cost Curve, Primary Care

Hot Air notes that "ObamaCare bends the cost curve... upward". (Related article, "Health Outlays Still Seen Rising".)

The WSJ notes, "Access to Primary Care No Guarantee of Better Care". Hence, any central-planning approach to somehow increase the numbers of primary care doctors won't necessarily actually improve medical outcomes.

Plus based on the Masschusetts experience, we can expect that primary care shortage will get worse and wait times will get longer once ObamaCare is implemented nationwide.

It's All About The Control

Today's nanny-state story on nutrition and health comes from Iowa, "Big Brother in Iowa? School District Monitors Kids' Lunch Choices":

An Iowa school district's lunch program asks children as young as 5 years old to memorize a four-digit PIN code so it can monitor what they eat in the school cafeteria -- prompting some parents to claim it's an unhealthy case of "Big Brother."

The Ankeny Community School District is maintaining a database that records what the kids buy to eat and then checks their food choices against national nutrition guidelines.

The program is intended to provide the children with more food options while ensuring compliance with new and stricter state-mandated nutrition requirements. But some parents are worried that the program infringes on people's freedoms...

Just as the government wants to monitor doctors to see if they follow proper "guidelines", some people want to ensure all children eat according to government guidelines.

It's not about keeping people healthy, it's about controlling people.

Doctors Hiring Scribes for EMRs

Under ObamaCare, physicians' offices will be required to use government-approved electronic records. (The Department of Health and Human Services even specified what counts as "meaningful use" to prevent physician offices from just purchasing the equipment but not using it.)

But because the EMRs (electronic medical records) make physicians so inefficient, many doctors are responding as one would expect: "Doctors hiring scribes because of electronic medical records".

Here's an excerpt:

...[I]t's rather difficult to tend to the computer when you’re supposed to be tending to the patient. It's relatively easy to write with pen and paper while listening and explaining. It's far harder to keep two hands on a keyboard, a third hand on the mouse, one eye on the screen and another eye on the patient and his family.

And the fact that most EMRs and user interfaces are designed by computer geeks with no knowledge of clinical care or workflow certainly doesn't help matters. As soon as EMRs are deployed, physician productivity typically goes down by about 50%. It rarely gets back to where it was prior to installation.

(Read the full text of "Doctors hiring scribes because of electronic medical records".)

So rather than saving money, mandatory EHRs will increase costs, decrease physician productivity, and increase patient waits. This is another lose-lose for both patients and doctors under ObamaCare.

Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh on Personhood

[Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh have just released the following major policy paper on the Colorado "Personhood Amendment". This is a major contribution to the abortion and "personhood" debate and I hope FIRM readers will circulate this information to all interested friends and colleagues. -- PSH]

==========

The Coalition for Secular Government is pleased to announce the release of its policy paper on the "personhood" movement by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh (Ph.D): The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception (PDF or HTML).

The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life

Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception

by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, Ph.D.

A policy paper written for the Coalition for Secular Government (www.SecularGovernment.us)

Published on August 31, 2010

Formats: HTML or PDF

Contents

• Introduction
• The 'Personhood' Movement
  • "Personhood" and the Abortion Debate
  • Colorado Campaigns
  • Campaigns in Other States
• The Destructive Effects of 'Personhood'
  • A Legal Quagmire
  • Harsh Legal Penalties
  • Bans of Elective Abortions
  • Abortions to Protect a Woman's Health
  • Abortions for Rape, Incest, and Fetal Deformity
  • Bans of Common Birth Control Methods
  • Bans of Common Fertility Treatments
  • Bans of Embryonic Stem-Cell Research
  • Amendment 62 Is Anti-Life
• Individual Rights and Abortion
  • The Compromise of Roe v. Wade
  • Today's "Pro-Choice" Rhetoric
  • The Core Arguments for "Personhood" Laws
  • Rights in Pregnancy
• The Morality of Abortion
• 'Personhood' and the Separation of Church and State
• Amendment 62 Is Not a 'Message'
• Notes

From the Introduction

Amendment 62, set to appear on Colorado's 2010 ballot, seeks to legally establish personhood from the moment of conception, granting a fertilized egg (or zygote) full legal rights in the state's constitution. Following in the footsteps of 2008's Amendment 48, Amendment 62 is the spearhead of a national campaign to outlaw abortion and other practices that could harm a zygote, embryo, or fetus.

If fully implemented, Amendment 62 would profoundly and adversely impact the lives of sexually-active couples, couples seeking children, pregnant women and their partners, doctors, and medical researchers. It would subject them to severe legal restrictions, police controls, and in many cases protracted court battles and criminal punishments.

Amendment 62 would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, terminally deformed fetuses, and danger to the woman's health. It would prohibit doctors from performing abortions except perhaps in some cases to save the life of the woman, thereby endangering the lives and health of many women. In conjunction with existing statutes, Amendment 62 would subject women and their doctors to first-degree murder charges for willfully terminating a pregnancy, with the required punishment of life in prison or the death penalty.

The impact of Amendment 62 would extend far beyond abortion into the personal corners of every couple's reproductive life. It would outlaw many forms of birth control, including the pill, IUD, and "morning after" drugs. It would require criminal investigation of any miscarriages deemed suspicious. It would ban potentially life-saving embryonic stem-cell research and common fertility treatments.

Amendment 62 rests on the absurd premise that a newly fertilized zygote is a full human person with an absolute right to biological life-support from a woman--regardless of her wishes and whatever the cost to her. The biological facts of pregnancy, in conjunction with an objective theory of rights, support a different view, namely that personhood and rights begin at birth. Colorado law should reflect those facts, not the Bible verses so often quoted (and creatively interpreted) by advocates of Amendment 62 and other "personhood" measures.

About the Authors

Ari Armstrong publishes Free Colorado and co-authors a column for Western Colorado's Grand Junction Free Press. He is the author of Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles, a book exploring the heroic fight for life-promoting values in the Potter novels.

Diana Hsieh founded the Coalition for Secular Government in 2008. She earned her doctorate in philosophy from the University of Colorado, Boulder. She is currently working on a book on Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, based on her series of podcasts at ExploreAtlasShrugged.com. More of her work can be found at DianaHsieh.com.

Read The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception (PDF or HTML).

Schwartz on Amendment 63

Brian Schwartz has an OpEd in the September 4, 2010 Colorado Springs Gazette, "Opposition to Amendment 63 both flawed and deceptive".

In particular, he debunks the following fallacy:

Edie Sonn of the Colorado Medical Society says Amendment 63 “will lead to higher health care costs for insured individuals and businesses as they are forced to absorb the costs of the uninsured.” This cost-shifting argument is both wrong and deceptive. Mandatory insurance will increase costs and impose much larger cost shifts.

(Read the full text of "Opposition to Amendment 63 both flawed and deceptive" for his detailed analysis.)

I also left the following comment on the editorial webpage:

Although I am a member of the Colorado Medical Society, I have to disagree with them when they declare that Amendment 63 will raise costs. Instead, it will lower costs and protect individual freedoms. It's the right thing for Colorado, and I hope the voters take advantage of this opportunity to defend both their pocketbooks and their freedoms.

Desperate Measures

Because of costs imposed by burdensome regulations, drug companies often do not pursue research into treatments that could benefit patients.

Dr. Stephane Huberty learned this the hard way when he was diagnosed with myasthenia gravis.

The September 2, 2010 Wall Street Journal describes the measures Dr. Huberty had to take (including injecting himself with an unapproved treatment he helped develop) in its article, "Desperate for a Treatment, One Physician Heals Himself".

(Via Dr. AA.)

Quick Links: Scherz and Amerling

Dr. Hal Scherz of Docs4PatientCare has piece in the September 1, 2010 Wall Street Journal entitled "Dear Patients: Vote to Repeal ObamaCare".

One critical passage:

In making doctors answerable in the federal bureaucracy this bill effectively makes them government employees and means that you and your doctor are no longer in charge of your health care decisions. This new law politicizes medicine and in my opinion destroys the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship that makes the American health care system the best in the world...

(Read the full text of "Dear Patients: Vote to Repeal ObamaCare".)

Dr. Richard Amerling of AAPS warns of "Enslavement by Health Insurance".

He likens our current system of tax-preferred employer-based health insurance to working in an oppressive "company store":

During World War II, the government imposed wage and price controls. In an effort to attract and retain workers, companies offered health insurance in lieu of wages. These benefits were not taxable for either the employer or employee. When the war ended and controls lifted (everywhere except in New York City, where rent controls persist to this day), the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance was retained. This explains why the majority of working Americans buy health insurance at work, at the "company store." This accident of history underlies much of what has gone wrong with health care in America...

(Read the full text of "Enslavement by Health Insurance".)

University of Colorado Clinics Turn Away Medicare/Medicaid

The August 27, 2010 Denver Post reports that "Two University Hospital clinics balk at government insurance".

Specifically, they are turning away patients covered by Medicare and Medicaid -- because they lose money on each one. These patients all have theoretical "coverage", but that's not the same as getting actual medical care.

Medicare and Medicaid are the government-run "universal coverage" programs for the elderly and the indigent, respectively. We can expect to hear about more such problems as the entire country moves towards a system of government "coverage".

(Via @MatthewBowdish.)

Hsieh LTE in Gazette on Amendment 63

The August 30, 2010 Colorado Springs Gazette has published my LTE supporting their position on Amendment 63 (the second one down):

Doctor gives thanks for 63

Thank you for speaking out in favor of the Colorado Health Care Choice Initiative protecting us from mandatory health insurance. This idea forming the core of ObamaCare has already been tried -- and failed -- in Massachusetts, resulting only in skyrocketing health costs, a desperate shortage of doctors, and significantly longer waits for medical care than in the rest of the country. Some Massachusetts patients must now wait almost a year for a routine physical exam.

As a practicing physician, such Massachusetts-style problems are the last thing I want here in Colorado. Colorado voters can avoid the mistakes of Massachusetts by supporting Amendment 63.

Paul Hsieh, MD
Sedalia

The original Gazette OpEd can be found at: "Amendment 63 protects our freedom".

Catron: The Laugher Curve

David Catron illustrates the unintentional comedy stylings of the advocates of ObamaCare in his latest piece, "The Laugher Curve".

Here's an excerpt:

Among the most hilarious ObamaCare justifications is the claim that it will reduce the federal budget deficit. No less a jokester than Paul Krugman produced this gag in a recent blog post, "the Medicare actuaries believe that the cost-saving provisions in the Obama health reform will make a huge difference to the long-run budget outlook... All the facts we have suggest that health reform was the biggest move toward fiscal responsibility in a long, long time."

The comedy writers from whom Krugman got this quip are the CMS bureaucrats who produced the latest Medicare Trustees Report, which claims "reform" will control Medicare spending enough to keep the program solvent while easing upward pressure on the deficit.

Alas, not everyone appreciates this brand of humor. One such stick-in-the-mud is Richard Foster, Medicare's Chief Actuary...

(Read the full text of "The Laugher Curve".)

Fortunately, we have a chance in November to send a message to our elected officials that we want ObamaCare repealed.

Let's make sure the last laugh is on the ObamaCare supporters, rather than on us.

Laugesen Defends Amendment 63

In the August 27, 2010 Colorado Springs Gazette, editor Wayne Laugesen defends the Right to Health Care Choice Initiative in their editorial "Amendment 63 protects our freedom".

In particular, Laugesen notes:

This is not a country in which might makes right. It's a country designed to protect minority interests against big government and mob sentiment. Therefore, the massive size of the federal bureaucracy alone does not equal legal authority to impose upon individuals and state governments. Congress has no authority to require individuals to buy private insurance, which is the basis of the lawsuit filed by states. It has no such authority because the Constitution does not grant it, not by any twisting of any phrase. That might not bother a majority in Congress, but it will most certainly matter to federal judges when they determine which rights belong to whom -- based entirely on their interpretation of the Constitution.

(Read the full text of "Amendment 63 protects our freedom".)

I'm glad to see newspapers like the Colorado Springs Gazette and editors like Laugesen speaking out for limited government and individual rights!

CO Amendment 63 and Risk Pools

Brian Schwartz discusses "Colorado Amendment 63, risk pools, & health care costs" at PatientPower.

Go check it out!

CastroCare In Crisis

So how's that universal Cuban health care working out?

Laurie Garrett discusses the current state of health care in Cuba in "Castrocare in Crisis". Here's an excerpt:

For years, Cuban hospital patients have needed to provide their own syringes, bed sheets, and towels. Some say they fear getting infections while visiting clinics because of shortages of soap, disinfectants, and sterile equipment.

A preventable form of cancer, cervical carcinoma, now ranks as the fourth leading cause of death for Cuban women. In most of the world, cervical cancer is on the decline thanks to annual gynecological screenings (with the Pap test) and the use of the human papillomavirus vaccine. In Cuba, however, the number of routine Pap tests performed has fallen by more than 30 percent and the number of diagnosed cervical cancer cases has doubled since 1985...

Cuba's doctors are increasingly strained. Physicians return from years abroad because they must, both contractually and to avoid repercussions for their relatives in Cuba. They then must accept whatever assignments the government gives them, including sometimes years of service in a remote village, a Havana slum, or a sparsely populated tobacco-growing area.

Many doctors and nurses leave the health-care system altogether, taking jobs as taxi drivers or in hotels, where they can earn CUCs. In February 2010, seven Cuban doctors sued the Cuban and Venezuelan governments, charging that the mandatory service they had performed in Venezuela in exchange for oil shipments to the Cuban government constituted "modern slavery" and "conditions of servilism for debt."

(Read the full text of "Castrocare in Crisis".)

Michael Moore must not have gotten the memo...

Via NCPA.

CO Health Care Choice Qualifies For Ballot

Today's Denver Post reports that the "Right to Health Care Choice" amendment has qualified for the November 2010 ballot, as Amendment 63.

There's also an official website for Amendment 63, where you can read the text of the Amendment.

I'm glad to see CO joining the list of states where voters are able to express their desire for genuine health care choice!

(Via @AriArmstrong.)

Quick Links: Innovation, Medicaid, Braking ObamaCare

Cleveland Clinic CEO Toby Cosgrove warns that "health-care reform could stifle medical innovation". (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 8/19/2010)

John Goodman points out how government-run Medicaid arbitrarily withdraws benefits from patients ("recissions") in far more arbitrary and abusive fashion that private insurance. (Kaiser Health News, 8/12/2010)

Grace-Marie Turner discusses 6 ways to slow down ObamaCare until its eventual repeal. (WSJ, 8/25/2010)