Tag Archives: Insurance

The Quagmire And Casualties Of ObamaCare

ObamaCareGiggles

Denial of coverage, denial of care and the Death Panels we were warned about creates nightmare for Americans and has Doctors running for the Exits

We were warned this would happen.

Of course the Obama Praetorian Media will not report it.

More Obamacare Non-News: Children Denied Coverage For ‘Specialty Treatment’ at Seattle Children’s Hospital

On January 20, we are told by “goptvclips,” Seattle TV Station King 5 aired a short segment on how children “are being denied specialty treatment by insurance providers on the Washington Health Benefits Network.” To be clear, the video’s conclusion indicates that “Children’s went ahead and treated” some but apparently far from all of the affected children, but, obviously “they can’t afford to keep doing it that way.”

This story and likely many other stories like it are not national news. As will be seen later, it appears to not even be news at the station which originally presented the story. Situations like this should raise concerns that there is a determined effort on the part of the nation’s establishment press to ignore bad-news stories relating to Obamacare. One suspects that there are similar stories waiting to be told all over the country.

There’s the view from the patient-end of this ObamaCare nightmare.

Here’s a view from a Doctor, who wrote and published on her blog – what the Insurance companies are doing because of mandates from ObamaCare and why she is opting out of serving their policy holders and heading for the exit.

When Dr. Kristin Held of San Antonio wrote to the Aetna insurance company canceling her participation in its offerings, she was told she is contractually bound to care for the company’s patients for another year — as though Obamacare not only re-configured the American health care system, but that it repealed the 13th Amendment at the same time.

Dr. Held remains undaunted and has done what all Americans should do with this tyrannical government – refuse to comply.

 

Notification of Termination to Aetna

January 30, 2014

Dear Mr. Bertolini,
With a deep sense of sadness, I must inform you that I will no longer serve as a physician for Aetna patients under the terms of our contractual agreement, which you most recently unilaterally changed.

I have been privileged and honored to care for thousands of patients covered by Aetna policies since the 1990’s. I have devoted my life to providing the very best, state-of-the-art care to these individuals. We have formed a patient-doctor relationship, which I hope many will chose to continue in spite of my severing ties with Aetna. You see, health insurance has evolved such that insurers and government have inserted themselves smack-dab in the middle of the once sacred patient-doctor relationship. I am called a provider- not a doctor. My patient is now yours- not mine. What I can do as a physician now has strangulating strings and nonsensical numbers attached- to you and government and money-not the best interests of the patients.

Obamacare, the “law of the land”, contains ever-changing-at-the-whim-of-HHS, politically-expedient mandates, rewards, penalties, rules and regulations with which I cannot rationally or morally treat my patients and run a practice, much-less interpret, implement, or comply.

Millions of Americans have lost coverage because of the healthcare law and must now shop on a defective, insecure government website and sign up for more expensive policies through Federal and State exchanges. Only by logging in as a prospective patient did my office manager and I discover that Aetna was selling plans for which I am a provider-effectively selling my services without even asking, much less informing me that my services would be sold on such a site, under the auspices of new terms with which I will not comply.

Then, after the fact, I received a form letter informing me of Aetna’s “new allowables”. I will not sell my services under such terms. While treated as such, patients and doctors are not commodities worthy of such impersonal, inconsiderate, and cavalier treatment. We choose dignity and personal service over disrespect and form letters.

So here we are, you are getting new business offering health insurance plans featuring my services without my consent under terms which are unacceptable to me. Accept this as my official written notice that the changes that you have unilaterally made to our contract are unacceptable to me and make our contract null and void. You must explain this to your patients. You must tell them that they have purchased a product that was misrepresented to them and that you cannot deliver. It saddens me to think of the decreased access to care from actual physicians and the shockingly increased costs Aetna patients will now experience because of your choice to collude with big government rather than collaborate with patients and physicians.

Kristin S. Held, MD

Since the gutless and spineless Judenrats in the GOP Ruling Class have signed onto this nefarious tyranny under the color of ‘law’, unless this nightmare is uprooted in it’s ugly entirety – the American people have only one recourse: defy, refuse and resist taking part in it.  This doctor did it.

However, in a tyranny – we can be sure the Obama iron fist will come down to crush anyone daring to assert their liberties – but then so be it.  A black market of excellent medical care will erupt for those with cash to pay for services, until the regime decides to make that illegal too.

Leave a comment

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny

Government Says They Have Power To Force You To Violate Your Faith

ViolateFaithObamCare

Obama Justice Department argues in Federal Court that they have the power to force anyone to violate their faith to comply with their laws.  Even Judge’s wives.

There were many Conservatives who warned that ObamaCare had little to do with actual provision of health care and insurance, and more to do with eliminating liberties and rights within the color of law.  It was a mechanism to destroy healthcare in the United States and force into being,  a single-payer government-run health system.  As we warned, people are discovering as ObamaCare is being implemented in full, that the First Amendment was effectively gutted with the passage and affirmation of ObamaCare by Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court.

Case-In-Point is the latest court arguments by the government against the suit filed by Tyndale House, Publishers of the Holy Bible and other Christian materials.

As with the various lawsuits brought by companies like Hobby Lobby, Obama’s InJustice Department, argues that anyone conducting business, especially anyone who is incorporated – forfeits their 1st Amendment protection of the free exercise of their religion.

The attorney in the case for the Obama regime went so far as to say when questioned by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton that the Judge’s own wife could be forced to violate her faith in order to be in compliance with the ObamaCare law.

CNS News covers the courtroom arguments.

DOJ to Federal Judge: We Can Force Your Wife to Violate Her Religion

While presenting an oral argument in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last fall, a lawyer for the U.S. Justice Department told a federal judge that the Obama administration believed it could force the judge’s own wife—a physician—to act against her religious faith in the conduct of her medical practice.

The assertion came in the case of Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, a challenge to the Obama administration’s regulation requiring health-care plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

Tyndale is a for-profit corporation that publishes Bibles, biblical commentaries and other religious works. Tyndale House Foundation, a religious non-profit organization, owns 96.5 percent of the corporation’s stock and receives 96.5 percent of its profits. The foundation’s mission is “to minister to the spiritual needs of people, primarily through grants to other religious charities.”

As a matter of religious principle, the foundation believes that human life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong.

The corporation self-insures, providing its employees with a generous health-care plan. But, in keeping with its religious faith, it does not in any way provide abortions. For this reason, Tyndale sued the Obama administration, arguing that the Obamacare regulation that would force it to provide abortion-inducing drugs and IUDs in its health-care plan violated its right to the free-exercise of religion.

“Consistent with the religious beliefs of Tyndale and its owners, Tyndale’s self-insured plan does not and has never covered abortions or abortifacient drugs or devices such as emergency contraception and intrauterine devices,” Tyndale said in its legal complaint, prepared by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

When Tyndale sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the administration from enforcing the regulation on the company before the federal courts could determine the issue on its merits, Benjamin Berwick, a lawyer for the Civil Division of the Justice Department presented the administration’s argument for why Tyndale should be forced to act against the religious faith of its owners. The oral argument over the preliminary injunction occurred Nov. 9 in Judge Walton’s court.

Berwick argued here–as the administration has argued in other cases where private businesses are challenging the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate–that once people form a corporation to conduct business they lose their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion insofar as their business is concerned.

In the face of this argument, Judge Walton asked an interesting question. His wife, a graduate of Georgetown Medical School, is a physician. She has incorporated her medical practice. Does that mean, according to the Obama administration’s argument, that the federal government can force her to act against her religious faith in the conduct of her medical practice?

Berwick effectively answered: Yes.

Here, from the official court transcript, is the verbatim exchange between this Obama administration lawyer and Judge Walton:

Benjamin Berwick: “Well, your honor, I think, I think there are two distinct ideas here: One is: Is the corporation itself religious such that it can exercise religion? And my, our argument is that it is not. Although again, we admit that it is a closer case than for a lot of other companies. And then the second question is, can the owners–is it a substantial burden on the owners when the requirement falls on the company that is a separate legal entity? I think for that question precisely what their beliefs are doesn’t really matter. I mean, they allege that they’re religious beliefs are being violated. We don’t question that. And we don’t question that that is the belief.

Judge Reggie Walton: But considering the closeness of the relationship that the individual owners have to the corporation to require them to fund what they believe amounts to the taking of a life, I don’t know what could be more contrary to one’s religious belief than that.

Berwick: Well, I don’t think the fact this is a closely-held corporation is particularly relevant, your honor. I mean, Mars, for example–

Judge Walton: Well, I mean, my wife has a medical practice. She has a corporation, but she’s the sole owner and sole stock owner. If she had strongly-held religious belief and she made that known that she operated her medical practice from that perspective, could she be required to pay for these types of items if she felt that that was causing her to violate her religious beliefs?

Berwick: Well, Your Honor, I think what it comes down to is whether there is a legal separation between the company and—

Judge Walton: It’s a legal separation. I mean, she obviously has created the corporation to limit her potential individual liability, but she’s the sole owner and everybody associates that medical practice with her as an individual. And if, you know, she was very active in her church and her church had these same type of strong religious-held beliefs, and members of the church and the community became aware of the fact that she is funding something that is totally contrary to what she professes as her belief, why should she have to do that?

Berwick: Well, your honor, again, I think it comes down to the fact that the corporation and the owner truly are separate. They are separate legal entities.

Judge Walton: So, she’d have to give up the limitation that conceivably would befall on her regarding liability in order to exercise her religion? So, she’d have to go as an individual proprietor with no corporation protection in order to assert her religious right? Isn’t that as significant burden?

On Nov. 16, Judge Walton granted Tyndale a preliminary injunctionpreventing the Obama administration from forcing the corporation to violate the religious beliefs of its owners.

4 Comments

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny