• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Side Effects: Obamacare Creates More Unnecessary Work for Already Swamped Doctors

    One provision of Obamacare has already spawned a nightmare for doctors, pharmacists, and patients. As of January 1, Americans with health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible savings accounts (FSAs), and health reimbursement accounts (HRAs) can no longer purchase over-the-counter (OTC) drugs using these tax-exempt accounts. After only a couple of months, health care providers are already experiencing the negative consequences of the change.

    This provision was included to raise tax revenue to help pay for massive new spending under Obamacare. From its conception, its major flaw is that it creates additional expenses for patients who depend on OTC drugs to manage chronic illness. To smooth out this wrinkle, the new law allowed for the continued use of the savings accounts for OTC drugs with a prescription.

    But this condition, which one pediatrician called “an amazingly disruptive policy,” has created a bureaucratic mess for doctors, who are already receiving an influx of requests for prescriptions for basic OTC drugs, such as cough medicine. This has led to an increase in avoidable office visits, since, as The Wall Street Journal’s Janet Adamy reports, “Doctors are also concerned about malpractice lawsuits, since a prescription potentially puts them on the hook for any problems a patient suffers from over-the-counter drugs.” Seeing the patient lowers the risk but unnecessarily adds to the workload of doctors, who are already pressed for time to spend with patients.

    Physicians are not the only ones affected. Pharmacies must follow the same regulations for OTC drugs as for all others if patients present prescriptions for them, meaning that additional labeling and packaging must occur.

    In the United States, there are about 33 million people who carry FSAs, and according to one survey, about half of them will now ask their doctor for prescriptions for basic OTC drugs to avoid additional new taxes. Another 36 percent will ask their doctor about using a prescription drug in place of an OTC drug. This overwhelming number does not include people who participate in HSAs and HRAs.

    The United States is facing a tremendous doctor shortage, which will be made worse by Obamacare. Because of this, health care reform should encourage Americans to seek out health care only when they really need it. Instead, Obamacare creates more work for doctors’ offices and pharmacies by incentivizing Americans to seek medical attention when it is not really necessary. This won’t just aggravate the effects of the physician shortage but will also increase unnecessary health spending.

    Reducing the kinds of products Americans can use FSAs, HSAs, and HRAs to purchase is just one minor change made by Obamacare that will have negative consequences and put enormous new strain on health care providers. The reality is that the law that was supposed to provide easier access to health care does exactly the opposite.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    19 Responses to Side Effects: Obamacare Creates More Unnecessary Work for Already Swamped Doctors

    1. West Texan says:

      Relief from Obamacare begins November, 2012. Hang in there.

    2. Steven A. Sylwester, says:

      Let us all agree: The health care system in the United States has a problem.

      Let us all agree: Obamacare does not fix the problem.

      Let us all agree: Obamacare needs to be repealed.

      Let us all agree: The problem in the U.S. health care system needs to be correctly identified, and then it needs to be permanently solved with an effective system-wide fix.

      Let us all agree: A system-wide fix to a national problem must involve the federal government.

      Let us all agree: The federal government is "We The People" as an ideal and as an actuality; the federal government is not "those Washington DC bureaucrats" in wrongful collusion with the U.S. Congress, even if it seems so by every possible observation.

      Let us all agree: We are capable of being adults and of doing the right thing, and we can act in the best interests of America to restore and then preserve our nation's integrity and its economic greatness.

      Let us all agree: We have demonstrated our potential to be our worst enemy, and we must overcome the temptations that lurk in the dark side of capitalism where the importance of people is replaced by the importance of money as measured in profits.

      Let us all agree: Our spouses, our children, our mothers, our fathers, our siblings, our friends, and our neighbors are more important than any corporation anywhere by every measure that truly matters, which are the measures of love found in caring, in kindness, in giving, and in forgiving — to love is to give without measure and without recompense. Corporations love no one. If love is to be an ingredient in America's goodness, then it must come from that "of the people, by the people, for the people" stuff that President Abraham Lincoln spoke of in his Gettysburg Address.

      * * *


      Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

      Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

      But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

      * * *

      Let us all agree: President Lincoln's resolve "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" is a resolve that every new generation of Americans must join in with utmost sincerity — out of duty, out of honor, out of respect, and out of patriotism. The signers of The Declaration of Independence put their signatures under these concluding words: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." As citizens of The United States of America in the year 2011, our mutual pledge to each other should be no less than that.

      Let us all agree: Each one of us has something to offer America, and the gift that each one of us brings is worthy of note and of proper consideration, even if the gifts of some seem contrary and difficult. Remember, America was made by these welcomed people: "Give me your tired, your poor,

      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

      Some of those welcomed people were ever only expert in their own opinions, but national greatness came of that. Those biblical days in our nation's history are not over yet, nor should they ever be over. Nourishment and truth is found in the salt of the earth — yes, even in those sorts of people whose education comes from living life.

      I offer my gift: http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/12/na

      You — the good people of The Heritage Foundation and its supporters — do not want to accept my gift, because it goes contrary to too many things that you hold sacred. But I ask: What is sacred? Webster's Dictionary defines the word "sacred" in this case as: "devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose)." Therefore, what? and why? and how? "When?" is now. "Where?" is here.

      President Abraham Lincoln said on a Civil War battlefield what needs to be said again now: "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

      Please accept my gift by reading my proposal. Thank you.

      Steven A. Sylwester

    3. Bobbie says:

      The games of complicating "changes" have to stop. He's deliberately trying to wear out the true American leaders of, for and by the people.

    4. Bobbie says:

      Or should I say "changes" to further complicate?

    5. Pingback: Must Know Headlines 3.12.2011 — ExposeTheMedia.com

    6. Dr Dan Freeland says:

      Another "side effect" (or in doctor speak, Adverse Event/Effect) of Obamacare is the use of Medicaid as the vehicle for the 30+ million "disaffected" people that will get insurance under this monstrosity. Medicaid in Texas (where I practice) is essentially charity care as it stands. The reimbursement is abysmal and the doctors that need to take clients that have it have to see an astronomical number of them per hour just to meet their expenses, thus the need to have what I call "McAdequate" care with sub-5 minute visits (which I refuse to do!). This "prescribe-by" medicine is inadequate at best (but necessary fiscally for the doctors that do it) but is tolerated by our media as "good care" to justify Obamacare's passing and now implementing.

      And as to the doctor shortage- I've not had a pay raise in 20 years, while people in other walks of life have caught up to my supposed "rich" lifestyle and in some ways surpassed by far with benefits (I have to pay for my own benefits in my solo practice which cost me dearly). For the last almost 4 years I haven't significantly put anything into my retirement that would be a "benefit" even though my practice has grown significantly, but my overhead has over doubled with my staff expenses and lease/rent.

      With those expense factors, which are almost NEVER put in Medicare/private insurance reimbursement increases (look at the Medicare reimbursements for doctors- they've NEVER kept up with inflationary costs in the last 20+ years, we're fighting to keep the SAME reimbursement as last year!), that puts me in the hole frequently and I have to, as a private business, absorb the cost PERSONALLY. Would anyone in their right mind go into medicine knowing that the upside is limited at best?

    7. Francesca DeTornesqu says:

      Dear Steve,

      Your sentiments are most inciteful, truthful, and poignant. The health system does need adjusting

      and there needs to be input from Registered nurses with more than 15 yr experience. It takes that long to be out there seeing all sides of the issue besides how we do OUR jobs. Too many

      Hospital CEO's are making TOO much money- like many teachers- while laying off nurses to"Save Money". This never saves money. In the end the patients suffer from lack of adequate

      effective nursing care which increases risks of re-admission and then we start all over with increased hospital costs to insurance companies. We the nurses,like doctors are responsible for the delivery of medications that can heal or damage, save or take life, and restore healthful states. We the nurses do NOT have the Cadillac Health plans that the teachers unions possess at the expense of myself and others. We do Notget benefits after we leave our intense ICU jobs for 15-20 years, we might get a Thank-you" if the administration has some appreciaiton.

      Hospitals that spend excessive amounts on their buildings design, internal decor, room, beds, etc will then pass this onto the insurance company/ and OR/ the patient. Why can 1 hospital charge 900/day for a semi-prvt room and another charges 6,000. And I am not talking an ICU room. I was in a hospital that charged 6,000.00 a day for semi-pvt and the care was not any better than another hospital that charged 2,000.00/day. These are just a few a the Many discrepencies that must be fixed.

    8. George Colgrove, VA says:


      I agree with you on two counts.

      1 Obamacare is bad

      2 the healthcare system IS broke.

      But The healthcare system is broke because of the federal government. The feds ARE bureaucrats. And they will just ruin healthcare with the next go around. The best system should stay with the private sector. Sorry Steve you are very wrong in your assessment. We do not want the federal government involved with our health.

      But thanks for admitting that obama failed. More of you fed loving big spending libs are starting to see some light. Hope is on the horizon!

    9. Steven A. Sylwester, says:

      Bobbie: Your use of "of, for and by the people" refers to what I wrote, so I will respond as if your comments were directed at me.

      I am not participating in a game to complicate the U.S. health care system. If anything, I am doing my utmost to simplify the system.

      Furthermore, I am not "trying to wear out the true American leaders." If anything, I am doing my utmost to call those leaders to the task of doing what needs to be done.

      Bobbie, I can only conclude that you have not read my proposal from beginning to end. Please do so.

      The U.S. health care system is driven by profit making, because its structure is a fear-based corporate enterprise that is multi-layered and interlocking throughout. Not one bit of it is altruistic, because the system does not allow for altruism. At its most basic is this suffering: the escalating cost of medical malpractice insurance instills fear in physicians, clinics, and hospitals by keeping the real threat of lawsuits at the forefront of all decision-making processes.


      If you sort out the medical malpractice insurance costs problem, what you will find are parasites — very well-fed parasites who live off of the U.S. health care system without bringing any benefit to it at all. Those parasites are the lawyers and the insurance companies that specialize in medical malpractice. The amount of money siphoned out of the system by those parasites is staggeringly enormous. Worse than that: the "siphoned out" amount grows and grows each and every year. It is robbery that is akin to the doings of organized crime, except that it is done in broad daylight while everyone watches and acquiesces. We must rid the U.S. health care system of its parasites.

      But the "profit making" is not just spurred by outside forces. There is plenty of internal greed, too. When the system promises a good living to its players, then the system needs to deliver on that promise — and so rules are made, and best practices are established. Unfortunately, "rules" and "best practices" made by a self-governing system always err on the side of self-interest, which — in a profit-making scheme — always results in more profits.

      Consider: http://www.npr.org/2011/03/12/134456594/study-die
      Ask yourself: If I were a physician, what would I do? Would I permanently cure attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in my patient with an effective diet recommendation? Or would I place my patient in a chronic condition status that would require ongoing prescription care and regular office visits over many years? If I were a profit-minded physician, the temptation would be to do the latter.

      Consider: http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/10/co
      Ask yourself: If I were a physician, what would I do? Would I permanently cure asthma in my patient with an effective Vitamin D regimen? Or would I place my patient in a chronic condition status that would require ongoing prescription care and regular office visits over many years? If I were a profit-minded physician, the temptation would be to do the latter.

      I can assure you with firsthand certainty that Vitamin D can literally cure asthma in at least some cases, but no pharmaceutical company making asthma-related drugs would ever want you to know that, nor would many profit-minded physicians who specialize in treating asthma and allergies. The system protects its own — and its own are not the patients!

      Bobbie, maybe you can ignore all of the above, but you cannot ignore this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
      The Associated Press news article "Preemie Birth Preventive Spikes From $10 To $1,500" reports an outrage — a price-gouging outrage — that should never be considered acceptable. Yet the article was written in Atlanta on March 10, 2011, and it reports: "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is not involved in setting the price for the drugs it approves." In other words, the U.S. health care system fully approves of the pricing strategy of "KV Pharmaceutical of suburban St.Louis," because free enterprise capitalism is the American way of doing business.

      Bobbie, I believe in capitalism. But capitalism only works in a free and open system that is fully vulnerable to market corrections. A market correction cannot happen in a closed system, nor can it happen to a monopoly, nor can it happen when price-fixing collusion is taking place. Monopolies are illegal. So too is price-fixing collusion.

      There is another kind of collusion that happens naturally in a closed system, and I will call it tit-for-tat collusion. It is the sort of collusion that is evident in the following excerpt from the "Preemie Birth Preventive …" article linked above: "But Snow and others said someone is going to have to pay the higher price. Some of the burden will fall on health insurance companies, which will have to raise premiums or other costs to their other customers." Of course, the health insurance companies will raise premiums (tit) enough to accommodate KV Pharmaceutical's pricing (tat) — and then raise them a little bit more just to be sure that their profits are not hurt.

      THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT: The U.S. health care system is a closed system that has created a huge economic bubble as a consequence of rampant tit-for-tat collusion throughout its system. That economic bubble would certainly suffer a market correction in a capitalism system that was free and open, but the closed system and its inherent collusion work together to make a market correction impossible. Consequently, the needed market correction will necessarily occur somewhere else in the U.S. economy as a mysterious hemorrhage that defies explanation. But worse: the mysterious hemorrhage will only serve to compound the problem.

      THE TERRIBLE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THIS: The U.S. economy currently has two huge economic bubbles that must endure market corrections but are not vulnerable to market corrections because they are protected within the structures of closed systems, and those two bubbles are in: 1) health care, and 2) public education. Mercifully, the governor of Wisconsin has started a process that might force the necessary market correction in public education, but no savior has yet started the necessary market correction in health care.

      Long term, the only workable solution is to treat health care and public education much differently than they have been treated in the past. My proposal is an attempt to show what that might look like in health care.

      Basically, the national health care budget must be permanently fixed in some way, and I propose that be as a capped maximum that is a percentage of the national GDP. My proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "The government shall provide all citizens with free and equal health care, including all tests, treatments, medications, therapies, procedures, surgeries, hospitalizations, and long-term care that: …

      4) are affordable within an overall government health care program budget that does not exceed 15% of the government’s GDP."

      Simply, my proposal concludes that money does not grow on trees, and that a healthy economy cannot overspend in any one aspect of itself. My proposal does not stifle creativity in invention and innovation. Rather, it serves to encourage and reward that creativity on an ongoing basis. As is the case now, those who successfully invent and innovate will be financially rewarded more than others, but not as a consequence of anything that could be construed as robbery.

      Steven A. Sylwester

    10. Kevin H, college par says:

      As usual, the conservatives and republcians continue to bash Obamacare, but offer nothing to reform health care themselves. They have had year afetr year to address this, and always punt on the issue because of how politically difficutl it is. Thankfully, we have Senators adn Congressmen courageous enough to take this issue on, even though many lost their seat for it, but finally we have some Members of Congress with guts – not these current weak teapartiers that do nothing but follow the latest poll and legisaltive accordingly.

      All we get from conservatives are silly platitudes and cliches, no actual policy suggestions, just misguided statements.

    11. Bobbie says:

      Steve, you are citing the neglect of government's oversight policies. Government intrusions and interventions is what caused private insurance companies to "look corrupt." Along with the housing crisis and the crumbling economy.

      With the intent of government involvement insurance companies would stand on honesty and decency if that was government's intent. People were born on their own and can survive without government instruction or influence.

      GOVERNMENT ISN'T THE ANSWER to health, education or housing!

    12. Bobbie says:

      and Steve, although I wrote my first comment before yours was posted, it really had no reflection of what you first wrote. I have a chronic illness that costs much out of pocket. Last year I paid $25 co pay for each prescription medication I need to survive and doctors visits were $15.00. Today and overvight it's $45 dollars a piece for everything I need. Quite a remarkable jump! I agree. people with chronic illnesses can be vulnerable to those looking at dollar signs. Almost a victim myself.

      I believe there are many cures to many illnesses, including my own, but you're right, money is a great temptation that many fall into instead of sharing that cure. I believe influenced by government as I personally witness from doctor to dentist. There are regulations, not because of my health, but because I'm labeled with a non-contagious disease brought on by unknown reasons.

      Gouging? Obama and his ill conceived term of "care" is causing great financial burden to those of us who live without the teat of government and wish to remain that way.

    13. Bobbie says:

      …sorry for any misunderstanding.

    14. Diane Reed, RN says:

      We NEED to focus on providing ideas for what we already have regarding ObamaCare or Health Care Reform. We can debate, argue, and discuss forever, but it takes initiative to provide input to our legislators to listen to 'the people' regarding what we think will work for us. Health care professionals that are working in the ‘trenches’ and understand the true need for healthcare reform, especially need to communicate our feelings, thoughts, ideas, and solutions for consideration in revising the current health care reform package.

      I state it will take initiative, because we are busy, yet if we initiate some action the initiative will become a necessary and consistent effort on our part to make sure our legislators HEAR and respond to what we think will fix what we think is wrong about this package that has been given or some say forced upon us. It will take persistence to INSURE you are heard, but I know it will pay off if enough of us provide the necessary input of problem and solution. If we can Blog about it, we definitely can do it!

      I know we have to change the current health insurance packages and processes we have. So, I consider the health care reform package provided by Obama as just a start. Now, it is up to us to make sure we are HEARD regarding what we think will make that package BETTER, which will include keeping some of it and getting rid of some of it. Definitely focusing on what you do not like should spur you to provide input on what you don't like and identify ideas on how it could be done better. Let’s get started!

    15. Bobbie says:

      Diane, We want our personal health and private information in our control. Our lives are our own. Our responsibilities in making decisions and choices and held accountable to our own, is all a part of freedom.

      This government "reform" is blatantly wrong and an unconstitutional dictate!

      Free market will keep our personal health and privacy within our rightful control. Free market generates their own revenue. Government does not, so there will always be excuses and cost issues which means there will always be compromise to the health of many which there will always be discrimination as government backing will use discretion when a health issue and or age of cost arises and it won't be medical discretion for the better.

      Considering the health care reform package provided by Obama has already shown fraud and corruption, is a clear sign not to trust any of it. And you write this is just the start? Time to end!

      Government needs to reform or remove the health care government provides that runs on fraud and corruption and reduce the costs of EVERYONE'S PRESCRIPTIONS they've promised to for years..

      For the government to look away from what they''re accountable for today, why would you want to put your personal health in their hands?

    16. Steven A. Sylwester, says:


      Who is the "We" and the "Our" that you refer to. Are you the spokesperson for an established group? If so, please identify the group.

      If you are writing in defense of your own opinion, then refer to yourself as "I."

      Your "our this" and "our that" throughout your March 21st comment reveals a strange paranoia, which can only be described as a distrust of the U.S. government. In its masthead, The Heritage Foundation describes its Vision with theses words: "Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish." To build such an America as that, the very first ingredient and the main ingredient thereafter must be an abiding trust in the U.S. government — a trust that cannot and will not fail, despite all things — a trust that believes in the prevailing goodness of America, despite all things — a trust that does not fall prey to worry and fear, despite all things — a trust that expects the spiritual motivations of "faith, hope, and love" to be common among all Americans, despite all things — a trust that will "Love your neighbor as yourself," despite all things.

      Bobbie, you care deeply, but you are caring about the wrong things.

      You wrote: "Free market will keep our personal health and privacy within our rightful control. Free market generates their own revenue."

      The reality is this: The world has changed, and the rulers in the new world are corporations — corporations that are not loyal to any nation, or even to their own customers. These corporations protect themselves with self-serving contracts, and they answer only to their own shareholders, i.e. those who seek to profit directly from the corporations' business practices. In no what whatsoever at all at any time do any of these corporations ever care about you, your "personal health," or your "privacy," except in whatever ways it is profitable and in their best interests to do so, or to the extent that they are compelled by law to do so, or to the extent that their in-house attorneys advise them to do so to avoid lawsuits. That is the truth. Best business practices are starkly objective regarding anything that has to do with either potential or actual profits, and that objectivity absolutely nixes anything that even remotely suggests a desire to care about the subjective needs of a customer — any customer, even including you.

      Simply, your health insurance company does not care about your health, except to the extent that it can successfully avoid paying any medical claims you might make. Your health insurance company profits only if it takes in more money than it pays out, so its incentives are: 1) to take in more and more (raise premiums), and 2) to pay out less and less (deny claims). That is the simple arithmetic.

      Bobbie, exactly where does the free market generate its own revenue? In the case of health insurance companies, revenue is generated through premiums. What does the word "premium" mean? According to Webster's Dictionary, the word "premium" means: "a sum over and above a regular price paid chiefly as an inducement or incentive, a sum in advance of or in addition to the nominal value of something, a high value or a value in excess of that normally or usually expected." In other words, because your health insurance company must make a profit to stay in business, you must pay insurance premiums at a rate that is higher than the cost of the medical care you might one day receive. That is the truth.

      The fact is: U.S. citizens are paying more money for health care than what health care actually costs, because the U.S. health care system requires the financial support — on a profit-taking basis — of a whole layer of system bureaucracy that does absolutely nothing except siphon their own profit out of the system — and they determine their own profit on a most-for-least basis that they alone control without any government interference. It is a robbery that is akin to the doings of organized crime.

      Help yourself. Read this: http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/12/na

      Steven A. Sylwester

    17. Bobbie says:


      Please, see the truth. I am not going to trust a government that interferes, complicates, burdens, discriminates, with the philosophy of building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish. That has to do with the freedom of the people, Steve. No hand holding or road blocking necessary. If the government abided by their constitutional duty, I would trust them. And yes, they have failed. Nobody knows the prevailing goodness of America more than the people themselves. Are you ranting off the social commandments?

      The world can change all it wants, that doesn't mean we have to accept being led by liars and cheats interfering with our livelihoods destroying our freedom. I'm speaking for you also. I believe the people of this country have true inner strength and it would show if we were led by those respectful of the American constitution. The rulers of the world are not the corporations, Unless you're speaking of the rich greedy ones the President slandered and then bailed out It's government and their unions who are not loyal to this country or the tax payers.

      As long as I have freedom of choice I don't care who corporations are protecting. They should answer to their shareholders. their shareholders personally invest in the company. I don't mind people who make profit honestly. That's what the American dream is! Businesses have the right to go through loop holes after loop holes. It's government, once again Steve, who didn't do their job of oversight. Obviously government didn't want honest business practices or they wouldn't have failed to do their job they're paid to. We are consumers by choice.

      I understand how insurance works and how they profit. It's a business. I also understand the rules and regulations mandated by government that causes rates and all costs regarding health to go up, just because.

      The insurances I've had never avoided a payment? government insurance does ALL THE TIME! Doctors can't afford to take Medicare patients because government avoids payments. Insurance policies don't change during it's coverage! That is the simple arithmetic conjured up to claim your accusations of the private sector.

      Right, Steve. The private insurance premiums are the result of government. Why can't you empathize with all the trouble it is? Government can't clean up what's in their control now! What they want that over 50% of the American people don't is unsustainable, irrational, unworkable and chaotic. I don't want that. And of course, unconstitutional.

      The fact is Americans are paying more money for health care to cover the costs of those that don't. And when there is robbery or corruption in the private sector, government makes the laws to hold them accountable and I will choose somewhere else. But for all purposes of accountability, the private sector should do the "oversight."

    18. doctordave says:

      Many physicians who are presently thinking of retiring because of Obama Care and its severe restrictions on both physician reimbursement, as well as decreasing the amount of funding needed to train more doctors, will retire or leave academic medicine and private practice.

      This social medicine fiasco will create a cash only treatment option to get non-government controlled care. It may even require Americans to LEAVE the country to go to open markets to have care. Obama Care is a very poor

      option for physicians in the future. Most doctors will not be able to pay overhead, plus the malpractice insurance costs which this administration totally ignored due to being in the pocket of the trial lawyers. You will see more and more television ads for "bad implants for hips" or some medication that was totally cleared by the FDA but later found to have a negative side effect on 1% of the patients. Large medical groups such as the Mayo Clinic will not accept government payments which is happening today.

      Our medical care will drop to a third world rate, which is exactly what Obama wants.

    19. Diane Reed, RN says:


      I hear what you're saying. You want Obamacare to go away & one of the actions you want to see is a free market. Specifically, how do you see that happening? And what are you willing to do to make it happen?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.