Obamacare will question your sex life

Are you sexually active? If so, with one partner, multiple partners or same-sex partners?”

Be ready to answer those questions and more the next time you go to the doctor, whether it’s the dermatologist or the cardiologist and no matter if the questions are unrelated to why you’re seeking medical help. And you can thank the Obama health law.

“This is nasty business,” says New York cardiologist Dr. Adam Budzikowski. He called the sex questions “insensitive, stupid and very intrusive.” He couldn’t think of an occasion when a cardiologist would need such information — but he knows he’ll be pushed to ask for it.

The president’s “reforms” aim to turn doctors into government agents, pressuring them financially to ask questions they consider inappropriate and unnecessary, and to violate their Hippocratic Oath to keep patients’ records confidential.

Embarrassing though it may be, you confide things to a doctor you wouldn’t tell anyone else. But this is entirely different.

Doctors and hospitals who don’t comply with the federal government’s electronic-health-records requirements forgo incentive payments now; starting in 2015, they’ll face financial penalties from Medicare and Medicaid. The Department of Health and Human Services has already paid out over $12.7 billion for these incentives.

Read more here.

George Bernard Shaw: The Progressive And Evil Thinking That Freedom Loving Americans Are Fighting Against-Repost

GBS is a truly evil man who so many of the progressives look up to.

If this video does not scare you, I do not know what will. These are the real death panels that progressives want to implement in America and around the world.

This is the type of thinking freedom loving Americans are fighting against. It is truly a battle of good vs evil. Those who want government to control the lives of everyone, and ultimately the death of all, are evil people. There is no other way to describe totalitarians, but as evil.

–C. Lewis

Your doctor to become 1-person death panel?

A government-funded “mortality index” study – which helps doctors determine whether a patient has a “good chance” of dying within the next 10 years – raises renewed concerns about health-care rationing under Obamacare.

Federal grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American Federation for Aging Research helped pay for researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, to create a “mortality index” designed to aid doctors in decision-making about “preventive intervention” for older patients.

The index provides doctors with 12 measures to assign points to an elderly patient. The lower the patient’s total points, the better his or her odds of survival. The highest score, 26 points, represents a 95-percent chance the patient will die within 10 years.

The index assigns all male subjects 2 points automatically because men on the average have a lower life expectancy than women, the study noted. Men and women aged between 60 and 64 get 1 point; ages 70 and 74 get 3 points, while 85 or over get 7 points.

Two points are further assigned in the following cases: Patients with a current or a previous cancer diagnosis, excluding minor skin cancers; lung disease impacting on physical activity or requiring oxygen; heart failure; smoking; difficulty bathing; difficulty managing money because of health or memory problems; difficulty walking several blocks. One point is assigned to those with diabetes or high blood sugar; difficulty pushing a large object; being thin or of abnormal weight.

Study author Dr. Marisa Cruz told UPI the mortality index could be an opportunity for seniors to engage with their primary care provider in having “informed discussions” about health-care maintenance.

Read more here.

Obamacare ‘sticker shock’ coming soon

We’ve seen health insusrance rates rise up to 20% in recent months for many plans. But this is just a drop in the bucket compared to what will happen when Obamacare is fully implemented.

Washington Post:

Many young, healthy Americans could soon see a jump in their health insurance costs, and insurance companies are saying: It’s not our fault.

The nation’s insurers are engaged in an all-out, last-ditch effort to shield themselves from blame for what they predict will be rate increases on policies they must unveil this spring to comply with President Obama’s health-care law.

Insurers point to several reasons that premiums will rise. They will soon be required to offer more-comprehensive coverage than many currently provide. Also, their costs will increase because they will be barred from rejecting the sick, and they will no longer be allowed to charge older customers sharply higher premiums than younger ones.

Supporters of the law counter that concerns about price hikes are overstated, partly because federal subsidies will cushion the blow.

The insurers’ public relations blitz is being propelled by a growing cast of executives, lobbyists, conservative activists and state health officials. They increasingly use the same catchphrase – “rate shock” – to warn about the potential for price surges.

Aetna chief executive Mark T. Bertolini invoked the term at his company’s recent annual investor conference, cautioning that premiums for plans sold to individuals could rise as much as 50 percent on average and could more than double for particular groups such as the young and healthy.

Read more here.

More evidence of ‘death panels’ in Obamacare

The foundations for health-care rationing and even so-called death panels may have already been quietly laid in largely unreported sections of President Obama’s health-care legislation, WND has found.

There is also concern for preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity and so-called life preferences.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, called for the establishment of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The new institute’s purpose is to carry out “comparative clinical effectiveness research,” which is defined in the law as evaluating and comparing “health outcomes” and “clinical effectiveness, risks and benefits” of two or more medical treatments or services.

The purpose of the research is purportedly for the government to determine which treatments work best so that money is not spent on less effective treatments.

Such research was already previously alloted $1.1 billion in Obama’s 2009 “stimulus” package. That legislation first created a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Obamacare now allows for about $3.8 billion in additional funding for effectiveness research, with the establishment of the new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The institute is to be governed by a “board” to assist in identifying research priorities and establishing the research project agenda.

Also weighing in will be an “expert advisory panel” of practicing and research clinicians, patients and experts in scientific and health services research and health services delivery.

A section of Obamacare makes clear the secretary of health and human services may not use research data from the new institute in a manner that treats the life of an elderly, disabled or terminally ill individual as lower in value than that of an individual who is younger, non-disabled or not terminally ill.

However, the dictate comes with a qualifier some many find concerning.

Obamacare contains largely unreported text that allows the health secretary to limit any “alternative treatments” of the elderly, disabled or terminally ill if such treatments are not recommended by the new research institute.

Read more here.

Dem braintrust: ‘The Case for Death Panels’

Providing health care to younger people offers “better value” since the elderly are “not going to live very long anyway,” contended a blogger for the liberal Slate magazine.

Prior to joining Slate in 2011, Matthew Yglesias was a fellow at the Center for American Progress, which is deeply tied to the White House and has been heavily influential in informing Obama administration policy.

Yglesias authored a blog posting on Monday titled “The Case For Death Panels, In One Chart.”

Yglesias’ piece was based on a graph that purported to show how American per capita health care spending goes from marginally higher than Germany or Sweden to much higher. The graphs show the vast majority of the spending increase takes place when Americans reach their late 60s with the costs being shifted to the public sector under Medicare.

That same day, Yglesias posted a correction to his blog piece, admitting the graph he used was “badly flawed.”

Still, his article goes on to make the case for rationing public health care for the elderly.

Writes Yglesias: “On the one hand, older people have more need for health care services which militates in favor of allocating spending to them. On the other hand, providing health care services to younger people generally offers better value in terms of years of life and quality of life saved.

“A 25-year-old who’s in a bad car accident can, if found in time and treated, still live a very happy and healthy life. If you’re 95 and get into the same car accident, then treatment is going to be much more difficult, recovery will be much less complete, and in the grand scheme of things you’re not going to live very long anyway.”

Yglesias argued that not only is health care spending on the elderly the key issue in the federal budget, “our disproportionate allocation of health care dollars to old people surely accounts for the remarkable lack of apparent cost effectiveness of the American health care system.”

Read more here.

Death Panels are HERE

Today while working my shift in the emergency room, an old lady was brought in very sick and in fact near death. I did my usual workup and evaluation and attempted to administer life saving treatment. It was my plan to admit this woman to the hospital. I found out a little later that this same woman had been a patient here just slightly more than 2 weeks ago with a DIFFERENT DIAGNOSIS. I was told that if this woman was admitted, the hospital would not be paid.

The new Medicare rule now is that if the same Medicare patient is re-admitted to the hospital within 30 days, the hospital will not be paid. When they first started this nonsense they said this only applied to patients with the same diagnosis. Now they have “expanded” the rule to include re-admissions for any reason. So if you’re in the hospital for pneumonia, and 3 weeks later, you break your leg…….too bad. Medicare will not pay the hospital to fix your leg.

A little later a man was brought in by ambulance, very sick, in pain, and near death. I did my usual evaluation and treatment, doing my best to ease pain and stabilize this man’s illness. He needed to be admitted. To my chagrin I found out that he had been treated for the SAME problem at a DIFFERENT HOSPITAL about 10 days prior. If I admitted this man, our hospital would be paid nothing. I admitted the man.

My friends I am caught in a terrible position. I could have given treatment to both of these people and sent them out. There is no doubt that both of them would have died. Oh, I could also be sued for malpractice, but nobody cares about that. That’s why we have insurance, right?

My other choice is to admit the person, knowing full well that the hospital will have to absorb the cost of care without hope of remuneration.

Read more here.

A British ‘death panel’ horror story

Liberals typically criticize the American health care system for being inhumane, and they often use medical horror stories to promote their case for more government control. But this shocking story from the Daily Mail demonstrates what can happen when the government takes control of personal life and death decisions:

An elderly woman died alone after doctors failed to tell relatives they were ending her life on the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway.

Olive Goom, 85, passed away with no one by her side after medics neglected to consult with her family about her treatment at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital….

As Miss Goom lay dying alone, staff reassured relatives on the phone just hours before her death that there was no urgent need to visit – even though doctors had already removed tubes providing vital food and fluids.

Her family discovered that she had died only when her niece went to visit her and found she was already being prepared for the mortuary. They said last night that they will never be able to stop feeling guilty that no one was there in her final hours.

The Mail has been contacted by several families who claim that relatives were put on the Liverpool Care Pathway – the controversial system designed to ease the suffering of the dying in their final hours – without any consultation.

Some said they found out that their relatives were on the pathway only after they happened to read their medical notes; and by that time it was too late.

The process involves withdrawing life-saving treatment and can involve the heavy sedation of a patient and the removal of tubes providing food and fluid. Thousands of patients every year are placed on the pathway, which was devised in the 1990s as a means of easing pain when it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.

Read more here.

Obama adviser admits: ‘We need death panels’

A top Democrat strategist and donor who served as President Obama’s lead auto-industry adviser recently conceded that the rationing of heath services under Obamacare is “inevitable.”

Steven Rattner advocated that such rationing should target elderly patients, while stating, “We need death panels.”

Rattner serves on the board the New America Foundation, or NAF, a George Soros-funded think tank that was instrumental in supporting Obamacare in 2010. Soros’ son, financier Jonathan Soros, is also a member of the foundation’s board.

Rattner was the so-called “car czar,” the lead auto adviser to the Treasury Department under Obama.

Last month, Rattner penned an opinion piece in the New York Times titled “Beyond Obamacare” in which he proclaimed “We need death panels” and argued rationing must be instructed to sustain Obama’s health-care plan. His comments have been virtually ignored by traditional media as the president campaign’s for a second term.

“We need death panels,” began Rattner. “Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health-care resources more prudently – rationing, by its proper name – the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”

Read more here.

What We’re Learning about Obamacare isn’t Good — Especially for Seniors

While I taught at the University of Virginia, I served for a while as associate dean. My dean at the time, Bill Shenkir, used a phrase that I thought was particularly helpful when we were contemplating major decisions: “Let’s reduce the fog factor.” By that he meant that we should always examine the ramifications of our decisions on our students’ classroom experience since teaching them was our primary mission.

Obamacare is an example of a federal government program that would not have been enacted if the fog factor test had been applied. While Congress debated Obamacare, talk about death panels and rationing of healthcare services abounded, but the warnings came from Republicans who were in the minority in the House and the Senate. Their objections were dismissed out of hand. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid rounded up Democrat votes and shoved Obamacare down our throats with the blessing of President Obama. The jury is still out on the legality of Obamacare, but while we wait for the courts to rule on the constitutional issues involved, the Obama administration is rapidly implementing the program. By the time the courts finally reach a decision, our healthcare system won’t resemble what we had prior to March 2010 when Nancy Pelosi used her oversized gavel to pound Obamacare through the House over strenuous objections from most Americans.

Our senior citizens are most at risk under Obamacare — especially those over 70. Rationing of services and death panels (only they’re called “ethics panels” under Obamacare instead of death panels for obvious reasons) are now the rule, not the exception. I have a friend who is a loyal Democrat and a strong Obama supporter. In 2008 when she voted for Obama, she couldn’t imagine that in 2012 she would have a massive heart attack and need a pacemaker. Prior to 2010 and the passage of Obamacare, that would have been a routine procedure, but not anymore. She’s over 70, and under Obamacare people who are over 70 routinely receive “comfort care.” That’s a euphemism. It means that a panel of experts has determined that your life isn’t worth saving beyond 70, so they will try to make you feel good while you die.

Where Obamacare is concerned, we’re beginning to be able to see through the fog, and what we’re learning isn’t good, especially for seniors, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg. If Obama is re-elected and Democrats retain their majority in the Senate, those “ethics panels” will busily go about doing their job and senior citizens will die prematurely from maladies that are easily treatable, and for one reason: they are over 70. That’s it in a nutshell. I’m not trying to frighten anyone. I’m simply presenting a fact.

Read more here.