Pennsylvanians for Human Life
 

Health Care Mandate



Many Doctors Opting Out of Medicare and Medicaid. Won’t Take New Patients.
By Sue Cirba 8/25/2014


“When government pays, abuses and inflation follow. The patients and physicians don’t care how much it (health care) costs (somebody else is paying for it). Hence our system 47 years later is unsustainable.” wrote a doctor from Texas. “As costs mount due to extra paperwork and extra regulations, and payments for invoices decrease, a point will be reached where people (doctors) will leave the field.” wrote another MD. These comments come from a 2012 survey conducted by the Doctor Patient Medical Association (DPMA) of Alexandria, Virginia. Statistics provided by The Commonwealth Foundation of Harrisburg, PA find, “Currently one in every three doctors will not accept new Medicaid patients” Many doctors believe government controlled health care is unsustainable.

Medicaid and Medicare were created when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed amendments to the Social Security Act on July 30, 1965 as part of his “Great Society”. They took effect in 1966 and have continued to grow steadily. Initially there were fewer people receiving Medicaid and more workers sharing the tax burden. In 2000, four workers supported one Medicaid recipient but today 2.8 workers support one Medicaid recipient. To control costs the government has steadily reduced payments to doctors for their services while increasing regulations.

Doctors reacted to third-party interference in the doctor- patient relationship, increased regulations and lower payments for services provided to Medicare and Medicaid patients. From Colorado: “I know how to take care of sick and injured people. PLEASE let me do my job the way I was trained to do it. I am so sick and tired of people with vastly inferior training or no medical training whatsoever, telling me how to treat my patients.” From Florida: “I did not go to school for 25+ years to be a computer programmer for the Federal Government.” wrote an Ophthalmologist. From North Carolina: “Medicaid has created enough obstacles that it is becoming harder and harder to even file as a chiropractor.” From North Carolina: “Quit forcing doctors to provide care to illegal aliens without payments for services.” These comments are from the DPMA survey conducted after the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was passed by Congress. Six-hundred ninety-nine doctors responded to the survey. From Massachusetts: “Medicare and health insurance companies have taken over control of health care. I spend 6-8 hours weekly trying to get insurance companies to cover most of the cost of medications that my patients need just to be able to function at a minimal level.” wrote a Psychiatrist. From Minnesota: “Government pay propagates government control. The Federal government has no constitutional authority in health care AT ALL (This includes medicare and medicaid)” wrote a radiologist.

The DPMA survey asked doctors, “How will you respond to lower Medicare/Medicaid payments?’, 48.9% of 699 physicians said they would stop taking new Medicaid patients. 42% would stop taking New Medicare patients and 31.6% would opt out of Medicare completely and 32.9% would opt out of medicine or retire early. The trend of physicians opting out of Medicare and Medicaid seems to be growing. From Illinois: “I am 80% of the way towards being third-party (payer) free.” From Texas, “I own a 4 physician FP (family practice) group; I will be out of business when Obamacare is fully implemented; we got out of Medicare this year.” From Tennessee: “I haven't taken any third party payment for over 11 years.” From South Carolina: “I opted out of all insurance 6 years ago and really enjoy practicing medicine again.”

When President Obama toured the country to gain public support for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). he stated repeatedly, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” If you are a Medicare or Medicaid patient and your doctor will no longer see Medicare or Medicaid patients, then YOU CANNOT KEEP YOUR DOCTOR. If you are a new Medicare of Medicaid patient you will have a more difficult time finding a doctor which may mean delays in care. When asked to rank “What would most improve medicine?” Seventy percent of the doctors who responded to the DPMA survey said reducing government regulations and mandates would most improve medicine and sixty-three percent said repealing part or all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would most improve medicine. Patients taking more responsibility for their health came in at sixty-eight percent, and prohibit rationing of care came in at forty-seven percent.

As our aging population swells the Medicare rolls and Obamacare pressures states to add more people to its Medicaid rolls, more doctors will opt out of these government run health care programs and patients will be expected to pay directly for their care.

Rasmussen Reports 60% of Likely Voters Support Repeal of the National Health Care Law. Source Link

States that Prevent Taxpayer Subsidy for Abortion through the State Exchanges

June 6, 2011

The new federal health care law, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, allows states to opt out of abortion coverage in the state-based insurance "exchanges" it creates. Below are the states that have enacted a provision to do just that.

TOTAL: 13 States have opted-out of abortion in Health Care Law

State

Citation

Limitations:

Arizona

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 20-121 (2011)

Life of the mother, avert substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.

Florida

Florida Legislature Chapter No. 2011-111

Limitation shall not apply to an abortion performed (a) when the life of the mother is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or (b) when the pregnancy is the result of an alleged act of rape or incest. 

Idaho

Idaho Code Ann. § 41-1848 (2011)

Life of the mother, rape or incest.

Indiana

Ind. Code. Ann. § 16-27-8-33 (2011)

Life of the mother, avert substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, rape or incest.

Kansas

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 2010 Supp. 40-2124(8) (2011)

Life of the mother.

Louisiana

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:1014 (2011)

None.

Mississippi

Miss. Code Ann. §§ 41-41-97, 41-41-99 (2011)

Limitation shall not apply to an abortion performed (a) when the life of the mother is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or (b) when the pregnancy is the result of an alleged act of rape or incest. 

Missouri

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 376.805 (2011)

Life of the mother.

Nebraska

L.B. 22 2011 Leg., 102nd Sess. (Neb. 2011)

Life of the mother.

Oklahoma

OKLA. STAT. ANN. § 1-741.3 (2011)

Life of the mother.

Tennessee

Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-26-134 (2011)

None.

Utah

Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-726 (LexisNexis 2011)

Life of the mother, avert substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, fetal defect, rape, rape of a child, incest.

Virginia

2010 Bill Tracking VA H.B. 2434 (LexisNexis)

Life of the mother is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or when the pregnancy is the result of an alleged act of rape or incest.



House Passes Most Pro-Abortion Bill in History!
By Maureen Manzano and Sue Cirba
A last-minute deal with anti-abortion Democrats on the afternoon of March 21 helped garner the votes needed to approve a massive health care bill.
Click here to read more.

It’s in the bill, and now it’s the law!
The eleventh hour deal between Congressman Bart Stupak and President Obama drew immediate fire from the National Right to life Committee as a bogus attempt to garner desperately needed votes to pass what amounts to the most pro-abortion federal legislation since the Roe v. Wade decision. On the day of the vote, the NRLC issued this statement:
“The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590). A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill. Pro-life citizens know, and they will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation.”
Click here to read more.


THE SEVEN DEADLY PROVISIONS...
1. Direct funding of abortion ($7 billion) through the Community Health Centers program. (Sect. 10503)
The health care bill creates funding streams unfettered by federal restrictions that apply to other funding sources. CHCs are already getting advice on how to circumvent federal restrictions and use taxpayer dollars for abortion services. (see http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/getting_started/faq.htm)
2. Billions in other direct appropriations not covered by abortion restrictions. (Sect. 1101 and 1322)
Additional pools of money without any restrictions for abortions, including a temporary high-health risk pool program and grants and loans for health co-ops.
3. Federally administered abortion plans. (Sect. 1334)
Only one of the federal OPM multi-state insurance plans would restrict abortions, implying that other federal plans may cover elective abortions or even be required to.
4. Federally subsidized abortion plans. (Sect. 1303)
Private plans that cover abortion will qualify for federal subsidies. Participants pay an abortion surcharge.
5. Authorities for pro-abortion mandates.
Broad power given to pro-abortion Health Secretary Sebelius to issue binding regulations on health matters, including the ability to issue future mandates requiring health care plans to cover abortions.
6. Open door to future abortion funding in Indian health programs. (Sect. 10221)
No restrictions on abortions in the reauthorized federal Indian health program.
7. Missing abortion nondiscrimination (conscience) language.
Pro-abortion senators blocked the health care conscience provisions that the House bill contained and the House just voted to uphold that blockage. As a result health care providers may face penalties for refusing to participate in abortion services.


Please write to your elected officials by entering your ZIP Code in the box below and clicking the GO button:







Follow ProLifeScranton on Twitter
Find us on Facebook
Victory for Life