Inside Obamacare

By Dr. Joseph Rosin


Follow Joseph Rosin on Blogspot

The change is coming much more rapidly than I imagined. Independent physicians are starting to vanish, fast. Economics drives behavior. In the mid 1990’s, doctors merged with hospitals to form networks in response to the HMO plans. The percent of doctors who were independent, private practitioner began to drop. Patients generally disliked the HMO programs and insurance companies went back to a model which allowed more choice. Most of these networks fell apart.

Fast forward to today. In the L.A. Times, there is an article about the movement of doctors to affiliate with hospitals, again. (Link)

This is in direct response to the provision in the new healthcare legislation for Accountable Care Organizations. (Link)

Doctors are as concerned as anyone about making a living. They realize that current government policy does include the independent practitioner. HMO’s were encouraged by government policy which took shape in the 1980’s. (The history of corruption with some of these early plans makes for great reading)*. Today we have the Medicare advantage plans as a result. The insurance companies will not touch them unless they get 15% more from CMS than they pay individual doctors. It is not hard to see that the government favors big organizations as proxies to control doctors and health care.

All Americans should have entrée to medical care as a matter of social benevolence. It makes the world a little kinder and more comfortable for us. It is on par with food and shelter. It has become increasingly expensive to access a doctor, largely due to attempts at government control. The politicians’ will is to be in charge of the solution. The fewer players they have to deal with, the easier it is to control the distribution of medical care. This results in consolidation, monopolies, layers of management and regulation, none of which provide any actual care. However, expenses continue to increase before one patient is treated.

Resources are limited. Therefore, less should be spent on bureaucratic control. That is not likely, since history has proven otherwise. So, why not allow a parallel system to compete? There are doctors who are willing to risk themselves in the professional marketplace. The current system effectively does not allow it. The present health care market is not a free market. Doctors and patients are hemmed in by government policy (Medicare). If the patients want to contract with a physician outside of Medicare, the care prescribed (doctor visit, lab, x-rays, CT scans, etc.) are not reimbursable by Medicare. If the doctor accepts this contract with the patient, he or she will not be able to bill the government for any other Medicare patient for two years. Very few doctors can take that risk. The alternative to participation is dire, so the economic pressure is to join large organizations.

The systems that provide large institutional care (i.e. the VA, Kaiser-Permanente, ACO’s) have a place. The doctor as an employee is not new. What is new, and should concern all of us, who may need personal and compassionate care, is the lack of choice as to who employs our physicians. The institution or the patient? Along with the drive to provide universal health care, there should be a system that fairly and realistically leaves room for the individual practitioner. A doctor practicing independently, in a free marketplace, can provide professional services for a fraction of what a big box medical conglomerate has to charge. There should be room for patients and doctors to choose to contract for professional services and not be penalized. Choice in health care should be as universal as the availability of care.

*From the files of CMS:

HEALTH CARE FINANCING REVIEW/Fall 2000/Volume 22, Number 1; page 64

The following indicates the drama associated with this particular episode of Medicare managed care history. This is the text of the FBI international crime alert regarding the head of IMC: “In 1986, a federal government task force was established to investigate charges of corruption and fraud on the part of Miguel Recarey, Jr. Recarey was then head of International Medical Centers, America’s largest health maintenance organization. During its peak years, International Medical Centers received three-hundred sixty million dollars a year in U.S. government Medicare funds. In April 1987, the first indictment was returned in Miami, Florida, against Recarey and three co-defendants for conspiracy, bribery, obstruction of justice, and illegal wiretapping.” The IMC crisis for Medicare and for the Medicare enrollees of the organization was alleviated when Humana took over operation of the plan, which continues operating to this day. However, the image of Medicare HMOs was tarnished by the IMC experience for many years afterwards.

For the full report click here.

Note: Recary remains living in Spain today. The U.S. Government has not been able to extradite him.


Legal scholar and famed criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz has a message for partisans dividing America: "A plague on both your houses." He voted for Hillary Clinton. He endorsed Joe Biden. He's a man who is basically the Forrest Gump of American judicial history.

Look up a big court case over the past few decades, and you'll probably see him standing in the background. He's represented notorious clients like Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, Harry Reems, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and yes, Donald Trump. It's made him a target for both the left and right.

Alan also describes himself as a "civil libertarian," and that's probably why he and Glenn Beck get along despite their opposing political views. His story is like a history lesson, spanning half a century, and it just might be the key to bridging the political divide.

On this week's podcast, Alan explained that while he's a strong defender of the Constitution, he's never been a big fan of the Second Amendment. In the past he's called it absurd and outdated, and even today, he admits that he wouldn't have ingrained it into our Constitution if he was a framer. However, with the whole Bill of Rights under attack, he's now fully in defense of our right to bear arms. Because if the Second Amendment changes, any amendment could be next.

"I'm now a supporter of the Second Amendment. I don't want to change it. I don't want to change one word of it, because I'm afraid that if I get to change the Second Amendment, other people will get to change the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment," Alan said. "So, I am committed to preserving the Bill of Rights, every single word, every comma, and every space between the words."

Watch a clip from the full interview with Alan Dershowitz below:

Watch the full podcast below, on Glenn's YouTube channel, or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Investigative reporter David Steinberg joined the radio program Monday, to explain how a new video may provide enough evidence to begin a FBI investigation into alleged illegal practices by Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar's campaign.

In the video, which was produced and released by Project Veritas, residents of Omar's community describe campaign teams that not only conduct illegal ballot harvesting practices but also pay people for their blank absentee ballots.

Steinberg told Glenn that, if these charges prove to be true, the federal government could bypass Omar's friend and protector, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. Could 2020 be the beginning of the end for Omar's political career?

Watch the video below to catch Glenn's conversation with David Steinberg:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Mike Fratantuono is the manager of Sunset Restaurant in Glen Burnie, Maryland. He wrote in the Washington Post's COVID-19 series about the recent, heartbreaking loss of his business, a restaurant that has been in his family for "four generations and counting."

"I know this virus is real, okay? It's real and it's awful. I'm not disputing any of that," Mike wrote. "But our national hysteria is worse. We allowed the virus to take over our economy, our small businesses, our schools, our social lives, our whole quality of life. We surrendered, and now everything is infected."

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck reacted to Mike's letter, which he shared in full, adding his hope that those in government are ultimately held responsible for what he called the biggest theft of the Western world.

"This is the biggest theft of, not only money, but of heritage and of hope," Glenn said. "The United States government and many of the states are responsible for this, not you. And hopefully someday soon, we'll return to some semblance of sanity, and those responsible for this theft, this rape of the Western world, will be held responsible."

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

We did our homework over the weekend; we did the research so we can tell you what is likely coming from Senate Democrats regarding President Trump's Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Based on our research and the anonymous people who have already come forward to talk about Coney Barrett's youth, these are the main shocking things you can expect Senate Democrats to seize on during the confirmation process…

A man has come forward under the banner of "#MenToo," to say that in second grade, Amy Coney Barrett and her best friend at the time, cornered him at a birthday party at Chuck-E-Cheese and "injected him with a full dose of cooties." Which, if true, would obviously be disqualifying for serving on the highest court in the land.

Then there's a woman who says when she was nine-years-old, she lived on the same street as Amy Coney Barrett. She alleges that Coney-Barrett borrowed her VHS tape of Herbie Goes Bananas and did not return it for at least six months. And then when she did finally get the tape back, the woman says Coney Barrett did not even bother to rewind it. The FBI has interviewed at least two witnesses so far who say the tape was indeed not rewound and that it was very upsetting to the owner of the tape. Again, if true, this is troubling – clearly not the kind of integrity you want to see in a Supreme Court justice.

Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it.

The same neighbor also dropped a bombshell allegation about the drinking problem of Amy Coney Barrett and her closest friends. Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it. The neighbor says she "frequently" witnessed Coney-Barrett and her friends chugging entire cartons of milk – often Whole Milk, sometimes Chocolate Milk, occasionally both at the same time through a funnel.

Unfortunately, shooting-up cooties, injurious rewinding, and potential calcium-abuse are not even the worst of it.

A third person has now come forward, another man, and this is just reprehensible, it's hard to even fathom. But he alleges that in fourth grade, when they were around ten-years-old, Amy Coney Barrett and a group of "four or five of her friends" gang-GRAPED him on the playground during recess. He alleges the group of friends snuck uneaten grapes out of the cafeteria and gang-GRAPED him repeatedly in broad daylight. In other words, and I hate to have to spell this out because it's kind of graphic, but the group led by ten-year-old Amy Coney Barrett pelted this poor defenseless boy with whole grapes. He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

Obviously, even if just one of these allegations is half-true, no Senator with a conscience could possibly vote to confirm Coney Barrett. When there is a clear pattern of destructive childhood behavior, it always continues into adulthood. Because people do not change. Ever.

Fortunately, for the sake of the Republic, Democrats plan to subpoena Coney Barrett's childhood diary, to see what, if any, insights it may provide into her calcium habits, as well as her abuse of illicit cooties and the gang-GRAPING incident.

We will keep you posted on the latest, but for now, it looks like Democrats will find plenty in the reckless pre-teen life of Amy Coney Barrett to cast doubt on her nomination. And if not, they can always fall back on her deranged preference for letting babies be born.

[NOTE: The preceding was a parody written by MRA writer Nathan Nipper.]