Now that is a rather outrageous lie. Did you pull it off of one of the hate sites, or just make it up out of thin air?
If you believe that Obamacare controls virtually every aspect of patient care, make your case. You're the one arguing that Obamacare took control of the entire heatlhcare industry.
Show me.
You'll find that it has almost nothing to do with any of those decisions. Instead regulating the insurance that customers use to pay for the healthcare. And only among those who don't have insurance through their work or medicare.
{Ten Essential Health Benefits must be offered at no dollar limits on every plan under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Essential Health Benefits consist of ten categories of items and services required on all individual and small group plans starting in 2014. Large Group Plans are not required to offer a essential benefits package, but most already do, as these benefits were defined from the coverage typically provided by large employers.}
And exactly as I've described that's
insurance coverage.. What is covered in a healthcare plan. Not patient care decisions. Those are determined almost exclusively by
private healthcare providers. Over which Obamacare has almost no regulation.
Obamacare is and remains a subsidized private marketplace. Destroying your claim yet again.
I've stated the facts, you are absurdly lying for reasons that it's hard to guess.
Nope. You've reimagined the word 'socialism', replacing 'ownership' with 'control'. And then made up your own definitions of both 'control' and 'regulation'. Citing just yourself.
None of that is 'facts'. But pure imagination.
As the view of
the proper role of government is a regular topic on the board, I wonder if any who read this article in the WSJ find this campaign by the Obama adminstration appropriate...
...and how it applies to the question of
where, on the political spectrum, this government fits.
1."Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ...latest attack, on the CEO of Forest Laboratories,...HHS this month sent a letter to 83-year-old Forest Labs CEO Howard Solomon, announcing it would henceforth refuse to do business with him. What earned Mr. Solomon the blackball? Well, nothing that he did—as admitted even by HHS.
2. ... allegations were among a rash of
government suits claiming that marketing to doctors common among drug companies amounted to fraud against Medicare and Medicaid. The charges were odd given their implication that major companies would be dumb enough to try to hoodwink their biggest customer. The charges also had a political flavor as an attempt to blame drug companies, rather than the fee-for-service design of the federal programs, for runaway costs.
3. The feds have rarely invoked this awesome power, given the potential for
coercive abuse. But Mrs. Sebelius seems bent on making it more common policy and says she can employ it even against executives who had no knowledge of an employee's misconduct. A year ago Mrs. Sebelius used it to dismiss the CEO of a small drugmaker in St. Louis.
4. Losing the federal government as a customer is potentially crippling to a drug company.
HHS says its action is about holding corporate CEOs accountable, but
it looks more like the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare. This is the same agency that has threatened insurers with exclusion from new state-run health exchanges if they raise their premiums more than Mrs. Sebelius wants, or if they spread what she deems to be "misinformation" about the President's health bill.
5. The hammer on Forest Labs "reinforces everybody's worst fears—that
this Administration won't do business with anybody that doesn't completely agree with its policy initiatives. Not only will it refuse to even have the argument, it will actively destroy these people," says Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who now runs the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. "
Review & Outlook: Kathleen Spitzer - WSJ.com
