What is hidden in ObamaCare?  Even Nancy Pelosi admitted to the unknown consequences of the bill when she said, ”we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

To help us (and Nancy) find out what is in ObamaCare, Sally Pipes, President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, read the greater than 2,000 pages of the legislation passed in March.  She published the findings in her new book, The Truth About ObamaCare.

AAPS Government Affairs Counsel Michael Ostrolenk interviewed Ms. Pipes, this past Wednesday, about her book as well as true free-market solutions that would re-empower patients to make their own health care decisions.

To Listen to interview-http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/001230



The healthcare reform bill’s mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance is an attempt to “regulate inactivity” that is taking the country into “constitutional never-never land,” Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli tells Newsmax.

Cuccinelli has garnered headlines by legally challenging Obama administration policies, taking action against the healthcare reform bill and the federal government’s suit challenging Arizona’s new immigration law.

In an exclusive interview, Cuccinelli tells Newsmax’s Chief Washington Correspondent Ronald Kessler it is “very shocking” that the federal government took action against the Arizona law in light of its inactivity in most immigration matters.

Full Article-http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-healthcare-immigration-obama-virginia-constitution-lawsuit/2010/08/11/id/367261

RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia's lawsuit challenging the Obama administration's health care reform law cleared its first legal hurdle Monday as a federal judge ruled the law raises a host of complex constitutional issues.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson's decision stemmed from Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's claims that Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution's Commerce Clause by requiring citizens to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

Hudson's ruling denied the Justice Department's attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed.

"The mere existence of the lawfully-enacted statute is sufficient to trigger the duty of the Attorney General of Virginia to defend the law and the associated sovereign power to enact it," Hudson wrote. "Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America."

Cuccinelli announced in March that he would challenge the national law. More than a dozen other state attorneys general have filed a separate lawsuit in Florida challenging the federal law, but Virginia's lawsuit is the first to go before a judge.



Full Aricle-http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jIYk-9I_3l_9vZpcpalaAhOGdUdgD9HBE8EO2

Doctors who treat chronic pain are increasingly targeted, prosecuted, and sent to prison by the Drug Enforcement Agency and Dept. of Justice. This war on doctors has led to widespread undertreatment of patients who require schedule 2 pharmaceuticals to relieve their pain. Siobhan Reynolds of the Pain Relief Network, is fighting back to help the patients and physicians who are under siege.

In this interview Ms. Reynolds speaks with Michael Ostrolenk of AAPS and Dane vonBreichenruchardt of the U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation. She gives an overview of the issues involved and recounts how she has been fined and even faced prison simply by being an effective advocate for those who few others will stand up for.

Listen to interview- http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/001170

What are your rights to refuse a vaccination for yourself or your children? Alan Phillips, J.D. of  www.VaccineRights.com discusses with Michael Ostrolenk the 3 main types of exemptions available, medical, religious, and philosophical.

Listen- http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/001146

Our progressive blogger friend Jane Hamsher reminds us of the facts;

Glenn Greenwald discovers a rather pernicious memory hole developing:

Yesterday, in The Washington Post, Katrina vanden Heuvel claimed that the pharmaceutical industry opposed the health care bill (“Missouri’s Roy Blunt, among others, stood with the insurance and drug companies against health-care reform”).  As Tim Carney documents, the opposite is true:  that industry emphatically supported the bill and undertook multiple actions — including spending substantial amounts of money — to ensure its passage.  That’s an important fact to preserve.

Full blog-Of Course the Drug Companies Loved the Health Care Bill

From CAT0:

For better or worse, President Obama's health care reform bill is now law. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents the most significant transformation of the American health care system since Medicare and Medicaid. It will fundamentally change nearly every aspect of health care, from insurance to the final delivery of care.

The length and complexity of the legislation, combined with a debate that often generated more heat than light, has led to massive confusion about the law's likely impact. But, it is now possible to analyze what is and is not in it, what it likely will and will not do. In particular, we now know that:

• While the new law will increase the number of Americans with insurance coverage, it falls significantly short of universal coverage. By 2019, roughly 21 million Americans will still be uninsured.
• The legislation will cost far more than advertised, more than $2.7 trillion over 10 years of full implementation, and will add $352 billion to the national debt over that period.
• Most American workers and businesses will see little or no change in their skyrocketing insurance costs, while millions of others, including younger and healthier workers and those who buy insurance on their own through the non-group market will actually see their premiums go up faster as a result of this legislation.
• The new law will increase taxes by more than $669 billion between now and 2019, and the burdens it places on business will significantly reduce economic growth and employment.
• While the law contains few direct provisions for rationing care, it nonetheless sets the stage for government rationing and interference with how doctors practice medicine.
• Millions of Americans who are happy with their current health insurance will not be able to keep it.

In short, the more we learn about what is in this new law, the more it looks like bad news for American taxpayers, businesses, health-care providers, and patients.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11961

New Rules by Czar Berwick, Chief Denier and Redistributor of Medical Care

By Jane M. Orient, M.D.,

http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/001136



No scalp would be as treasured by Republicans this fall as that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And no incumbent is receiving as much air support from the drug industry as is Reid, who championed a health care bill that pads drug company profits.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Drug-lobby-showers-money-on-its-hero-Harry-Reid-97882064.html#ixzz0t0DXXAJa

http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/001111

Clare Gray, M.D. of Physicians for Reform talks with Michael Ostrolenk about the long history of this philosophical debate which is not unique to our present time. Plato and Hippocrates argued about the proper role of medicine in the 4th Century B.C. and the fundamental question was the same then as it is today: “What is more important, the good of the individual or the good of the state”? Should physicians serve the state’s financial interests or be an advocate for their patients’ wellbeing?  Click on play below to listen to Dr. Gray outline this debate.

   Standard Podcast [17:10m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download 

A short video on this subject is available at: http://www.physiciansforreform.org/index.php?id=14



"Every time cuts are postponed, the next scheduled cut gets deeper. It’s like a balloon mortgage payment in reverse."

Full Article-

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/104439-ama-and-congress-playing-chicken-again-

Ryan Ellis, Tax Policy Director of Americans for Tax Reform, discusses the 19 tax-increases and new taxes created by the recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Despite President Obama’s pledge to not increase taxes for families making less than 250k per year, they are affected by 7 of the taxes increased or created by ObamaCare.

To Listen-http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/001095

From our friends at the Institute for Health Freedom's Health Freedom Watch;

Motion to Dismiss Virginia Suit Against Health Insurance Mandate to Be Heard July 1

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson will hear arguments July 1 on the federal government's motion to dismiss Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare’s health insurance mandate. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports:

“[State attorney general Kenneth] Cuccinelli…argues that Congress overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause to mandate that every American obtain health insurance or face a fine. The insurance mandate portion of the act takes effect in 2014.”
“In its response…federal lawyers argued that Congress is allowed to impose the mandate under its authority to regulate interstate commerce. It also said Virginia cannot represent individuals who have yet to be affected by the mandate.”
“Regardless of how Hudson rules on the motion, however, the losing side is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Both sides expect the case will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.”
According to Ken Klukowski, a senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union and frequent Fox News contributor:

“[T]he Virginia suit is raising the ‘severability’ issue. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the future of American health care may well turn on severability. Almost all legislation has a severability clause. That’s routine language—almost boilerplate—that says if any one part of this law is found unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid or unenforceable, then the remainder of the law will continue in full force and effect.”
“Obamacare has no severability clause. That means is that if any one part of Obamacare is found unconstitutional, then the entire law might be thrown out in court by a single decision. It doesn’t mean that it would definitely happen, but it might. This lack of severability could be the silver bullet that destroys the entire Obamacare system. Otherwise, striking down any one part of it could just open the door to a dozen more lawsuits, some of which the Obama administration would win. And various parts of the law may get entrenched support over time, making them hard to modify or replace.”
“We’re in something of uncharted waters with the Virginia case…Unlike the big multistate case, where several co-plaintiffs are private individuals lacking insurance who would be subject to the mandate, the Virginia suit only names one plaintiff, Virginia, and one defendant, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.”
“So the heart of the administration’s argument for dismissal is that Virginia lacks standing to bring the suit. Article III of the Constitution requires that a plaintiff have standing to sue in federal court. To have standing, a plaintiff must allege a concrete, personal injury that is different from the public at large, that a court can redress if it grants the relief that the plaintiff is seeking. Here, Virginia’s legislature passed a law empowering and charging the attorney general to bring suit on behalf of all the citizens of Virginia that would be under the hammer of the individual mandate. Cuccinelli filed suit in accordance with that law.”
“There is no Supreme Court precedent that clearly states whether such facts can create standing. The motion to dismiss makes the argument against it, and now Cuccinelli will argue why Virginia does have standing.”
An update on the Virginia lawsuit (May 24 press release) is posted at the Virginia AG’s website: http://www.oag.state.va.us/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/52410_HealthCare_Response.html

Sources:

“July 1 Hearing in Cuccinelli Health-Care Suit,” by Jim Nolan, Richmond Times-Dispatch, June 3, 2010: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/CUCCGAT03_20100603-171801/348829/
“First Battle Over Obamacare Begins,” by Ken Klukowski, FoxNews.com, June 1, 2010:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/01/ken-klukowski-obamacare-severability/


In her interview with Michael Ostrolenk, Dr. Peel of www.patientprivacyrights.org also discusses  HIPAA, the Patient Privacy Consumer Toolkit, privacy provisions in the Stimulus Bill, and more!

Click to Listen

From our friends at ANH-USA

"Two new 'damning' reports about the Swine flu pandemic were published today: The first—the result of an investigation by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism—reveals the ties to ‘pharma’ of the three scientists who authored the World Health Organization (WHO) guidance issued in 2004. It raises both moral and ethical questions, when scientists working on guidance documents to inform government practice, are allowed to remain in the pay of pharmaceutical companies. It is after all the pharmaceutical companies who stand to gain, to the tune of billions of dollars, from a pandemic. Still worse, is that this conflict of interest was not declared by the WHO."

Full Article-http://www.anh-europe.org/news/swine-flu-bmj-investigation-confirms-who-experts-in-pay-of-%E2%80%98pharma%E2%80%99