About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, June 15, 2007 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Hi everyone,
 
Hillary Clinton's 1992 health care proposal should give Americans insight into what sort of President she would be.  While many people remember that her proposal was very complex, fewer remember its assault on freedom.  Hillary would have made it a federal crime, punishable by imprisonment, for a doctor to treat a patient outside of the government-run health care cartel. Under her proposal, if you needed treatment for a disease and the government system would not accept you as a patient because it deemed the treatment medically unnecessary or if others were ahead of you in line (and believe me, without a system of voluntary payment for medical services, such services would be rationed), and if you went to a doctor asking for treatment, the doctor could have been imprisoned for treating you.  How likely do you think it would be that you would get treatment under such rules?  If you are upset (as I am) by the totalitarian implications of George Bush's assertion of his power to imprison Americans in the war on terror, you haven't seen anything yet!  Wait until Hillary puts doctors in jail for doing their jobs of saving lives outside of her government-run system.
 
Please pass this email on to your friends.
 
Frank
Fbubb1 (at) aol (dot) com



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, June 15, 2007 - 2:10pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Frank is right on the mark!

When I worked at the Joint Economic Committee we did the chart of the Clinton plan; it was a horrifying, complex Rube Goldberg and helped kill the plan. My one contribution got deleted because they wanted the chart to be completely neutral and objective-looking. It was an icon of a cop apprehending a doctor trying to do business outside the system

But we don’t have to wait for Hillary Care Mark II to see the danger. There are doctors right now who are fined or who even go to jail for paperwork errors in current federal programs. See the essay below that we published by the late Madeleine Cosman on “The Government’s Envy Engine.” Then imagined that magnified many, many times.

Ed Hudgins

-----


The government's envy engine

by Madeleine Cosman

Released On: September 4, 2002

Many Americans understandably are concerned about the Bush administration's proposed Terrorist Information Prevention System, a program to encourage citizens to report suspicious activities to government officials.

While common sense diligence must always be encouraged, this program raises serious civil liberties concerns. Do we really want a government program to encourage us to spy and snoop on each other like in some communist country, tempting neighbors to report the neighbors they dislike as suspicious characters?

A preview of what TIPS will offer exists. It's a legal monstrosity that encourages citizens to rat out individuals who accept federal money and who allegedly violate federal regulations.

An old Civil War-era statute, revived in the 1986 Federal Civil False Claims Act, allows private parties to file "Qui Tam" actions in the name of the feds, with government informants getting one-third of the loot that the feds take in fines or reimbursements from often-innocent victims.

Cases under this provision have risen from 32 in 1987 to over 1,500 in 2001, with nearly $1 billion in collections.

Qui Tam might seem to be a good way to encourage people to report misuse of taxpayers' funds. In fact, Qui Tam encourages disgruntled or fired employees to seek revenge on their bosses, divorcees to inflict maximum pain and suffering on their ex-spouses, ingrate customers to grab quick big bucks from those who do them a service, and trial lawyers to plunder the productive elements of society.

Consider how this envy engine actually works.

Many Qui Tam cases involve Medicare and government payments to physicians.

Physicians must attest to their familiarity with the laws governing those funds. Medicare has over 110,000 pages of regulations. No doctor, patient, bureaucrat, or legislator actually can read and understand those complex, contradictory regulations. Further, not just intent, but an honest mistake -- an inevitable outcome when more than 100,000 pages of regulations are involved -- can convict you.

Worse still, there is a $10,000 fine for each alleged infraction plus triple damages assessed for the allegedly amount misbilled plus other penalties.

Consider the case of Irwin Halper, whose lab performed 65 medical tests for which he billed $12 each for a total of $780. According to the feds, Halper should have charged only $3 per procedure and collected only $195. For this $585 error he was fined $130,000 -- with a snitch getting part of the take -- and spent two years in jail.

Consider the case of J.J. Rutgard, who earned $65,140 for removing cataracts from 15 patients among the nearly 20,000 that he treated over a five-year period.  

The skillfully done operations were necessary to improve the patients' vision, and the patients were thrilled with their improved eyesight. But the eyesight of those 15 patients was not considered poor enough for the procedure to be "medically necessary" as defined by the Medicare regulations for that year.

Several employees, seeing an opportunity to destroy their boss and to feed off his shattered life, ratted him out.

Rutgard's fine was $16.2 million, of which his ex-employees took their cut, and he was sentenced to 11 years in a federal penitentiary. After appeal, he served five years in the clink.

Consider the current case of an orthopedic surgeon who did successful procedures on the elbows of 300 patients, at $250 a piece, or $75,000 total over a three-year period. His fired office manager, who was having an affair with the surgeon's wife, argued that the good doctor had billed improperly, using the wrong reimbursement code.

The anticipated fine: $3.25 million. The adulterous office manager expects to run off with the doctor's wife and a cool $1 million. We can expect more such cases in the future.
Activists hold seminars for the elderly, giving them 1-800 numbers so they can supplement their Social Security by stealing from their doctors.

Non-medical Qui Tam abuse abounds as well.

Gilbert Realty allegedly overcharged the government $1,630 over a number of months for providing housing for the poor. The fine: $290,000. The tenant Mr. Smith who already had his rent subsidized by the taxpayers was able to commit a Qui Tam theft against the landlord.

Mr. Bajakajian had contracted a legal debt of $357,144, and had the legal right to take the money out of the country in order to pay the debt. When he failed to fill out the proper form, he was reported in a Qui Tam action. The fine: the total $357,144. The snitch expected over $100,000.

The Qui Tam record augers the effects of the TIPS program on our personal liberty and our civil culture. TIPS will unleash people's lower urges, and give them a dangerous weapon with which to indulge petty jealousies, irrational impulses, and mean little hatreds.

A free society is built on laws that foster mutual respect, not malicious envy. A free society stimulates trust, not suspicion between citizens. The TIPS program, like its Qui Tam predecessor, will undermine rather than protect our freedoms.








Post 2

Monday, June 18, 2007 - 9:21amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
There are a lot of doctors now who don't want medicare patients - Is it still legal not to accept them?  I would like to see people shrug with respect to any payments from the government.



Post 3

Monday, June 18, 2007 - 9:40amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Kurt -- Last time I checked, if a doctor accepts direct payment for any service covered under Medicare/Medicaid, they are not allowed to have any patients under those programs. In other words, a doctor can reject all patients who don't come with cash in hand but in that case, it must be all cash and no patients with government money.

Most doctors get substantial portions of their incomes from older patients on Medicare and thus cannot afford to give up that revenue in order to treat patients "on the side" for cash.

This also means, for example, if you're a patient in the hospital and Medicare covers three days for you to be there for a particular ailment, if you ask to stay an extra day and offer cash to the hospital, the hospital must turn you down or forfeit their government handouts.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Monday, June 18, 2007 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
What an awful system, and I am forced to pay for it.  Amazing to me it is not self-evident to everyone how bad this is.

Similary, front page on the metro daily (a free paper) here in Philadelphia is some politico saying everyone should get free college now in PA - so not only do I have to pay for schools, I also have to pay for college too?




Post 5

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 - 7:33pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

I think the root of the health care system's problems lies in the fact that the costs of procedures and treatments are neither up front nor even generally available to patients either at their doctor's or in a hospital.

I spent about 6 months in the hospital due to abdominal surgeries from November 2001 through April 2002. I was never once advised of the price of a procedure nor would an answer have been possible, had I asked. Given that I had full emergency coverage above $600, the many tens of thousands of dollars of costs I incurred were covered in full except for my partial deductible for 2001 and my full deductible for 2002 - i.e., I paid less than $1,200 out of pocket.

Upon reading some of the insurance statements from my stay, I saw charges such as - Benadryl, 50 mg, $120 - and so forth. (I have bad allergies and my pharmacist sells me 1000 x 25 mg Benadryl for $20, over the counter. This lasts me about a year.) This reminded me of my college tuition bill, where, unless I checked that I did not wish to do so, my parents were charged a fee to support Ralph Nader's NJPIRG - New Jersey Public Interest Research Group - which provided no student benefits but which had gotten itself on the tuition bill because the student senate had authorized the charge as a voluntary student fee. A voluntary fee you paid unless you said you didn't want to! (Eventually this was challenged in court and the state legislature outlawed it. The fee was put back on the bill, but only if one checked that one did wish to pay for it.)

When you pull up to a gas station, the price is on a sign visible form the highway. The prices for items at a restaurant are listed on the menu. If doctors and hospitals had to advise and get authorization for their charges from patients prior to treatment, even if only in non-emergency cases, what would be the result? Is not billing for items not specifically authorized and only after-the-fact a form of fraud in essence? One does sign a statement of responsibility for payment upon admission. But how this amounts to an unlimited credit line extended in your name by proxy to those charging you for their services without being a criminal conflict of interest is beyond me.

Ted Keer




Post 6

Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 12:29pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Someone new to Objectivism who received this via Meetup replied:
First of all imprisonment has never been an issue in any other of the civilized nations who practice socialized medicine.  What agency is going to run down doctors anyway?  Would it be the Heath Czar? (Republicans appoint a lot of Czars which seems "red" to me.)
 
What we have now is the country being run by the insurance cartels who are debilitating and killing people in the name of "free enterprise" and "capitalism"; by virtue of the fact that they are legally obligated to make a profit for their shareholders and the only way to do this is to deny people medical care by not allowing private doctors to operate or provide medical treatment. 
 
Why do we need a third party to come between American citizens and their doctors?  Do you also believe that only the privileged few should be allowed fire and police protection in the name of your brand of "freedom"? 
 
I tried to do a reply to all but was prevented from doing this.  If you really believe in freedom of speech Frank then please pass this along.  I encourage open discussion in our free society and am intelligent enough not to buy into scare tactics.
Who would like to offer some responses?




Post 7

Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 12:50pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Luke -- As the Cosman piece above documents, physicians in the United States have had to pay huge fines and in fact some have been imprisoned for not filling out their forms right. So shouldn't we assume that under a totalitarian Hillary regime we'd see this on a grand scale?



Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Friday, June 29, 2007 - 10:49amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I generally find dialogues on single issues like health care very frustrating because they contain so many underlying premises that need addressing first such as:
  • natural metaphysics versus social metaphysics
  • the law of identity applied to economics
  • the many decades of government meddling that led to the current mess in American health care
  • the right of the producer to the fruits of his own labors
  • etc.
I sympathize with the plight of the person who sent me the post I quoted in Post 6 of this thread.  The working poor have a tough time getting decent medical care for themselves and their children, especially if they find themselves in broken families with deadbeat parents.  A friend of mine, a heart surgeon, explained to me that before the age of Medicare and Medicaid, charities did an adequate job of handling such cases and medical costs stayed lower because providers had far less paperwork.  Once the government got involved, bureaucracy and compliance costs skyrocketed and the increase in (stolen via taxes) supply of cash drove medical prices upward.  Add to that the incentives to employers to provide health insurance to employees as a form of tax reduction and you have quite a mess.

As I said, this giant web of government meddling in a system that already basically worked has led to the sick and misleading phenomena of Michael Moore's Sicko and Hillary Care.  I see no easy way to disarm the political machine of special interests that either want to keep what we have or, worse, lead us to a system that would make Castro blush.  Shocking though it may sound, the working poor would suffer less in a purely capitalistic system than under either of those two bureaucratic systems.




Post 9

Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 8:40amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I generally find dialogues on single issues like health care very frustrating because they contain so many underlying premises that need addressing first... (Luke)
What Luke said. Exactly.

(The rest of it, too.)
 Sanction.





Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.