Category Archives: mythbusters

Legislation heavily promoted by the AMA and passed by the House of Representatives, H.R. 3961, would eliminate the 21% scheduled Medicare pay cut for doctors required by the sustained growth rate (SGR) formula. Yearly last-minute reprieves have postponed the cuts … Continue reading →

The Democrat’s reform plans would have a powerful ally—the Roman Catholic Church and its huge network of hospitals—were it not for the perception that plans as currently drafted would permit taxpayer funding of abortions. Without the Stupak Amendment, legislation probably … Continue reading →

The growing number of “48 million uninsured” includes perhaps 15 million illegal aliens (Phoenix Business Journal 7/22/09). Obama’s statement that “ the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally” elicited the notorious “You lie” outburst … Continue reading →

Calling something affordable, even in the title, doesn’t make it so. Making somebody else pay the bill doesn’t make it affordable either. A massive redistribution scheme adds costs, and makes the total cost less affordable.

It all sounds very reasonable: to set priorities, to use the most effective therapies, to serve the neediest first. Rationing is a given, say reform advocates. Insurance companies already do it. Let’s just make it rational and fair. Some say … Continue reading →

In his address to Congress on health care reform, Barack Obama cited Alabama as a state in which almost 90% of health insurance is controlled by one company. “[A]n additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is … Continue reading →

We constantly hear that the United States is the only nation in the “developed,” or “industrialized” world (we no longer say “civilized” world or “free” world) that doesn’t have taxpayer-funded medical care for all.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs used the phrase “choice and competition” three times, and variations on the words “choice” and “competition” five times each, in a 1 minute, 10 second interview with CBS’s Face the Nation, noted Mike Gonzalez. That … Continue reading →

Obama has promised that doctors, not bureaucrats, will be making the decisions under his “health care reform” plan. If Obama’s promise is true, why do central planners need extensive data on every encounter with every patient?

Spokesmen for the Democrats’ “health care reform” proposals say that all those ordinary-appearing Americans waving hand-made signs are either operatives of powerful vested interests, especially insurance companies, or “political enemies” bent on destroying the Obama presidency.

Everybody in a country with “universal health care” has a “right” to health care, but Americans do not—or so it is argued. “Health care reform” is supposed to correct a moral deficiency in the United States, and, at long last, … Continue reading →

The strategy during the August recess was outlined by Paul Begala, a Democrat strategist close to the White House: “Supporters of reform have to put the status quo on trial” (Politico.com 7/26/09).

If “democracy” means a nationally televised speech by the Leader, the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars by pressure groups, and a frenzied process of voting on a short deadline, then this is a Democratic process—with a capital “D” … Continue reading →

The reason that the President needs to promise that he won’t take away your health plan or your doctor is that he believes that he could. After all, there is no right to choose a doctor or form of payment … Continue reading →

The White House claims that the choice of a public plan operating alongside private plans would spur private plans to improve. It also promises that all plans would be playing by the same rules.

The idea of having a “wellness” rather than a “disease” orientation is politically appealing, and politicians on both sides of the aisle promise painless savings of “billions” by “incenting doctors” to “keep people healthy.”

It is frequently asserted, especially by groups such as Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), that a “single payer” (government) system could “save” enough money on administration to buy coverage for all the uninsured.