Thread: The Future of Obamacare

Like · · Share · 121 · 25 minutes ago ·
Liberty Calling With Judy Morris shared The Independent Institute's photo.


Obamacare and the Titanic....

Nation In Distress


Its time to Remove Everyone and start from scratch!!!
LIKE and SHARE ~Ace

Join Us ► Nation In Distress





I say remove both parties one group lies the other swears to it!!!!

Biggest Obama Lie Exposed!!!! (Videos)


Thursday, January 2, 2014 8:30


(Before It's News)
By Susan Duclos

With all the lies already exposed, from Obama’s very public insistence that anyone claiming the Individual Mandate portion of Obamacare was a tax was a liar, until the Supreme Court blew that lie out of the water by saying the only way it was constitutional WAS as a tax, to the claim that is people liked their health insurance plan they could keep it and later finding out that millions couldn’t, one would think those were the worst of the outright lying Obama did before the Obamacare law was passed and signed.

One would be wrong as the biggest Obama/Obamacare lie has just been exposed.

Like so many other parts of ObamaCare, the reality flies in the face of promises. In this case, it was the one where the president assured us that “you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making.”
Section 1311(h)(1)(B) of the health law gives the secretary of Health and Human Services blanket authority to dictate how doctors treat patients. Not just patients in government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but patients with private plans they pay for themselves. On Dec. 2, 2013, we learned from the Federal Register that the rules are now being written. Starting in 2015, insurance companies will be barred from doing business with doctors who fail to comply. The rules will be offered in the name of ensuring “health-care quality,” which of course could mean anything.
According to Congressman Phil Gingrey (R. Georgia), who is a physician, “The powers given to the secretary are so broad, he or she could literally dictate how all physicians nationwide practice medicine.”

In the videos below we see that doctors are concerned over a number of aspects which they are publicly stating will eaffect their relationship with their patients and patient access to their doctors.









(Photo above, woman gets a cancellation notice)

Cross posted at Wake up America



http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2014/...rticalresponse

Pants-on-Fire Resolutions of America’s Political Elite

Posted by Molli Nickell, Granny Guerrilla on Jan 3, 2014

Barrack Hussein Obama~

• I SHALL encourage all citizens to express, without fear of retribution, their thoughts and feelings about Obamacare.
• I SHALL declare that anti-Obamacare folks are not political dissidents, but merely “misguided belief holders.” If they like their beliefs, they can keep their beliefs. Period.
• I SHALL assure everyone who takes action to repeal Obamacare, that they will not be enrolled in “belief adjustment” seminars or railroaded to FEMA re-education camps.
• I SHALL cancel shovel-ready railroad projects linking hundreds of FEMA re-education camps that are under construction.
  
• I SHALL re-open the White House to the public, re-instate veteran’s benefits, cancel welfare to illegal aliens, rebuild citizen trust in my transparent government, and never again take a selfie while wearing my onesie.

Michelle Obama

• I SHALL celebrate being “fifty and fabulous” with a low-key, budget-friendly birthday gathering.

• I SHALL develop a behind-the-scenes program to share my vast personal experience with fitness, high fashion, and cosmetic make-over techniques.
• I SHALL resist pressure from Valerie to nominate me to the next wide open seat on the Supreme Court.
  
• I SHALL cease writing about the need to eat healthy food (especially carrots) since the right-wing sabotaged sales of my home gardening book.

Joe Biden~

• I SHALL campaign to become the democrat candidate for president in 2016 by maintaining high media visibility with witty comments and displays of my sexy, manly body.
• I SHALL select Hillary for my vice-president to help her gain the experience she did not acquire as Secretary of State while country-hopping on her quest for photo ops and a decent haircut.

Eric Holder~

• I SHALL contemplate the sage advice of Horton, my favorite elephant, who . . .
  “meant what he said,
  and said what he meant,
  and always was truthful,
  100%”
• I SHALL direct my Department of Injustice to prosecute law breakers without prejudice regarding race, color, and party affiliation, even if the perpetrators cling to God and guns, drive pick-up trucks, live in or near swamps, and have really long beards.

John Boehner~

• I SHALL find the courage to just say “no” to Harry Reid.
• I SHALL stop flip-flopping from republican to rino to democrat to progressive kool-aid drinker and back to republican.
• I SHALL restore my skin to its natural color, whatever that is.
• I SHALL never ever cry in public again.

Hillary Clinton~

• I SHALL complete my next best seller, “It Takes the Village People to Transform a Country.”
• I SHALL continue my investigation regarding the loss of four American lives and 20,000 surface-to-air missiles during the Benghazi attack.
• I SHALL appear humble while accepting awards for my work that has made a difference in the resurgence of peace in Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Russia, Yemen, and the Ukraine.
• I SHALL sue to block publication of a sexist book, “How to Succeed in Politics Without Having Accomplished Anything At All.”

Bill Clinton~

• I SHALL live by my vow of chastity when Hillary’s White House is filled with nubile government interns.

Washington D.C. Fire Department~

• 
  
  • WE SHALL install hundreds of additional fire alarms in Washington, D.C. to quell the continual pants-on-fire outbreaks.
  
  

Molli Nickell, a commentator for TheBlaze, posts additional fables at www.grannyguerrillas.com.
To look inside her book, “Uncle SCAM’S Book of Politically Incorrect Fables, Click Here. This quick-read, 96-page book will entertain, educate, and amuse the patriots as well as the low-information voters in your personal universe. Pass it around! Save 25% off the cover price of $7.95 when you order through createspace (the e-commerce division of Amazon.com). Use discount code TG4NRPFB. Click here to order
A 35+ year veteran of the publishing business, Molli also is a book doctor/editor who helps writers get their work published at www.getpublishednow.biz

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/01/pan...LrG8GEIzHYs.99

Liberty Calling With Judy Morris shared Tea Party Patriots's photo.


Obamacare - UN-insuring the insured....




Under Obamacare, more than 4.7 million have had their plans canceled, while only 2 million have signed up for insurance. Obamacare: Un-insuring the Insured.... http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/01/it...n-enrollments/

Sunday, 05 January 2014 14:20 11 State Attorneys General: Obama's So-called ObamaCare Tweaking Illegal

Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.






President Obama may claim that his executive actions to change laws passed by Congress are mere tweaks and technicalities, but in reality he is usurping legislative powers belonging to Congress every time he changes so much as a comma, let along makes substantive changes.
The very first sentence in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states that “all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” which means of course that zero legislative powers are vested in the presidency, despite whatever claims or rationale Obama may provide to the contrary.

In letter dated December 26, 11 state attorneys general defend the separation of powers built into the U.S. Constitution and explain that Obama is acting illegally every time he changes provisions of his hallmark healthcare debacle — ObamaCare.


The Fiscal Times reports:
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey sent a letter on Thursday [December 26] to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius questioning the constitutionality of the president’s latest executive action that allowed insurance companies to continue offering plans that had been cancelled. The letter, signed by attorneys general from Republican-dominated states including Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia, called the rule change “flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law.”

“We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action,” the letter said. “The illegal actions by this administration must stop.”

Regardless of the White House’s rhetoric, it is simple to understanding that any alterations to a law creates, in fact, a new law. Any new law must be passed, as the AGs rightly point out, by Congress as prescribed by the Constitution.

In their letter, the 11 attorneys general make the case that the separation of powers that the president is violating is one of the core concepts of freedom from tyranny undergirding our Constitution.

James Madison warned of such a situation — when one body would unconstitutionally consolidate all authority — in The Federalist, No. 46. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny,” Madison wrote.

While the action of the attorneys general is praiseworthy, as is their understanding of the need to keep each branch of the federal government within the boundaries of its powers as drawn by the Constitution, writing letters to Kathleen Sebelius is unlikely to keep President Obama from “tweaking” the healthcare law and acting as the autocrat that he believes he has the right and power to be.

One of the most potent weapons — and one of the most constitutionally sound — is nullification.

The states, through the exercise of the 10th Amendment and their authority to rule as sovereign entities, may stop ObamaCare at the state borders by enacting state statutes nullifying the healthcare law and criminalizing state participation in administering or executing the unconstitutional provisions thereof.

Nullification is the “rightful remedy” and is a much more constitutionally sound method of checking federal usurpation. It is quicker and less complicated than an attempt to have the law repealed by Congress or overturned by a future federal bench more respectful of the Constitution.
The best defense of nullification is found in Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution of 1798. In the Kentucky Resolution, Jefferson plainly pointed to the constitutional source of all federal power. He wrote:

That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour [sic] of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.
All state legislative bodies have an obligation to liberty and to their citizens to follow the example of legislative chambers in states such as South Carolina, Missouri, and Oklahoma by voting to nullify unconstitutional ObamaCare mandates.

Nullification is a concept of constitutional law that recognizes the right of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.

This power is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision, supporters of American federalism are encouraged to see state legislators boldly asserting their right to restrain the federal government through application of the very powerful and very constitutional principle of nullification.
Perhaps, though, there is even a stronger compulsion for elected and appointed state officials to stop ObamaCare at the state borders.
It would seem that resisting federal trampling of the Constitution is not only a right of state lawmakers, it is a constitutional obligation.

Article VI, Clause 3 reads:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Simply put, this clause puts all state legislators under a legally binding obligation (assuming they’ve taken their oath of office) to “support the Constitution.”

There is no better way, it would seem, for these elected state representatives of the people to show support for the Constitution than by demanding that the officers of the federal government adhere to constitutional limits on their power.

Maybe more of these state legislators, attorneys general, and judges would be more inclined to perform their Article VI duty if the people that put them in office would sue them and hold them legally accountable for any failures to carry this burden.
Imagine, furthermore, the uproar in state assemblies across the country if every day the legislators were in session process servers showed up at their offices armed with lawsuits charging them with dereliction of their constitutional duty!

Again, the 11 attorneys general are to be commended for their efforts and for their concern for the preservation of these key concepts of constitutionally protected liberties. Something must be done and they are doing something.
If more isn’t done, and soon, however, more of Madison’s predictions might come true. For example, in The Federalist, No. 16, Madison writes that if state governments allow federal programs to be directly imposed on the people without the interference of the state legislatures, the result would be an “open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power.”

President Obama, in “tweaking” a law is making a new law and that is an outright, unapologetic assumption of powers that do not belong to him or to any president. As one observer wrote, the president cannot “change a single semicolon of a federal law by himself.”
Who will try to stop him from step by step consolidating all power until he is the de facto dictator of the once free United States?
It is up to the states, the states that created the federal government, to interpose and defend the liberties and rule of law that have guaranteed the right of all men to be free from the dictates of despots.
Nullification by state legislators and governors of every unconstitutional act, every time one is passed by Congress and signed by the president, is the best and surest way for state lawmakers to discharge their constitutional duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution of the United States.
And, as the ultimate sovereigns, we, the people, must demand that our elected officials uphold their oaths and prevent the president or anyone from “tweaking” any law without constitutional authority to do so.
Although ObamaCare certainly isn’t a “law” in that it was a usurpation of power and deserves to be treated as such, states are right to fight the battle against it on all fronts.

^{Photo of President Obama: AP Images}

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He is the host of The New American Review radio show that is simulcast on YouTube every Monday. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...eaking-illegal

posted on January 3, 2014

Charlie Rangel: ObamaCare is 'Most Exciting Thing' to Happen Since 'the Republic Began'



If you’re a liberal, the Constitution is your Kryptonite. It protects everything you despise and the limitations it imposes on the federal government are a serious thorn in the side of your impossible, unsustainable, socialist utopia. You think its guarantees are grossly outdated, existing only to hamper your ability to enlighten a nation full of gun-worshipping dullards. To be blunt, the republic it establishes represents everything you seek to undo.

Maybe that’s why ethically-challenged Democrat Rep. Charlie Rangel thinks “Health care is the most exciting thing that’s happened for the United States of America since the republic began.”

Note that the most exciting thing for the republic was not the moon landing. It wasn’t the defeat of Adolph Hitler, and it wasn’t Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. For the far left, ObamaCare is the be-all and end-all because it represents the first glorious step toward their Marxist fever dream.

Since ObamaCare tramples the concepts of individual liberty and states’ rights, it’s a major win for their side. It’s a bit like saying a stake through the heart is the “most exciting thing” to happen to Dracula.
Sure, the ACA is poorly conceived, deeply unpopular, and falling apart as we speak, but when you’ve come this close to attaining your ultimate weapon, it’s hard to contain your glee. We’ll see if they’re still so excited in November.
Charlie appears below. Don’t lend him any money, and be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.


Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by CainTV, which can be found at caintv.com

Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.

video at link below

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60220


Right you are Charlie and cows will pour their milk from the sky to all the people of the world!!! This guy is a nitwit!!

Obamacare: Health Secretary to Dictate How Doctors Practice Medicine


HHS Secretary Sebelius, a bureaucrat with no medical experience, can tell your doctor how to treat patients starting in 2015

Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
January 2, 2014

Despite President Obama’s claim that “you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor,” a little known provision of Obamacare gives the health secretary broad authority to dictate how doctors practice medicine and treat their patients.

If she’s still the health secretary in 2015, Kathleen Sebelius will tell doctors how to practice medicine even though she has absolutely no medical experience. Credit: United States Mission Geneva via Wiki

Starting in 2015, Obamacare will grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services, an unelected bureaucrat with no medical experience, power to decide what treatments are available to patients and if the doctor can perform procedures.
Section 1311(h)(1)(b) of Obamacare reads:

“Beginning on January 1, 2015, a qualified health plan may contract with … a health care provider only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require.”

In other words, insurance companies will be banned from doing business with doctors who do not comply with the regulations established by the health secretary – and there’s almost no limit on what these regulations may entail.

“Under President Obama’s health care law, should the HHS Secretary determine that performing mammograms on women younger than 50 violates a standard of care, the provider must comply, regardless of his or her concerns,” Rep. Phil Gingrey, M.D. (R-Ga.) said on the subject. “Failure to do so would allow the Secretary to shut down a medical practice.”

“The powers given to the Secretary are so broad, he or she could literally dictate how all physicians nationwide practice medicine.”

The lawmaker also added that the provision violates “the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, as physicians are trained to treat patients individually and not with a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach.”

However, Dr. Donald Berwick, an administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under Obama, deplored that the physician’s focus is “on the acute needs of individual patients” and not on “care for important subgroups” in the name of “social justice,” as reported by Betsy McCaughey.

Berwick’s statement serves as a microcosm of Section 1311(h)(1)(b) and for Obamacare as a whole: the pursuit of centralized planning and collectivism at the expense of the individual.

Rep. Gingrey, one of the few lawmakers who knew about the provision, introduced the Safeguarding Care of Patients Everywhere Act in both 2012 and 2013 to repeal Section 1311(h)(1)(b), but both bills never left the Subcommittee on Health.

Outside of Gingrey’s press release on his bills and a recent article in the New York Post, the provision has generated little media attention.
But by 2015, Americans will be demanding answers for the inevitable loss-of-life due to byzantine regulations and the destruction of the doctor-patient relationship.

(H/T: Betsy McCaughey with the New York Post)
This article was posted: Thursday, January 2, 2014 at 1:44 pm

http://www.infowars.com/obamacare-he...tice-medicine/

Marc Siegel: The Death of the Bedside Manner

ObamaCare is speeding the decline in the quality of medical practice.

By Marc Siegel


Dec. 26, 2013 7:17 p.m. ET

'It is as painful perhaps to be awakened from a vision as to be born," James Joyce wrote famously in his masterpiece "Ulysses." I recently had such an experience when my office manager—who protects me from the daily insurance grind of referrals and approvals and pre-certifications and blood drawing—was out sick. Thus the veil was lifted from my eyes, and I awoke to the harsh realities of our medical future.

One patient was severely depressed and needed medication and a referral to a psychiatrist. Another was having trouble breathing from asthma that requires inhalers. A third had a faded rash on her arm that she was ready to call a spider bite until she showed me a two-day-old iPhone photo. It was the angry red rash of Lyme disease. Each problem had an effective treatment but each visit took over half an hour to carefully complete.

The appointments were gratifying, in an old-fashioned way. Patients still have the expectation that their doctor will be patient and listen carefully, but one by one doctors and patients are awakening from that comforting vision of the past to the rushed, restricted world of the ObamaCare future. Thanks to that eye-opening week without my office manager, when I ran hours behind, I was forced to forfeit the vision I had of myself as an old country doctor practicing in a big city.

For me and many of my colleagues, the real practice of medicine is supposed to involve an intimate encounter with each patient and a diagnosis of illness leading to a potential cure. In the future, however, a diagnosis of Lyme disease or the severity of a patient's depression may be missed because showing the photo or taking an extensive mental-health history doesn't fit squarely into the 10-minute visit authorized by insurance, along with mandatory computer documentation, insurance verifications and appointment scheduling.

These problems predate ObamaCare, but the new law brings more regulations and low-quality insurance at a time when we are already struggling to comply with the electronic health-record mandate.

Enlarge Image


Getty Images

Supporters of health reform will say that the Affordable Care Act didn't cause all these problems, that President Obama shouldn't be blamed for wanting to make sure that everyone has health insurance. Unfortunately, the kind of insurance that is growing under ObamaCare's fertilizer is the exact kind that was jeopardizing the quality of health care in the first place: the kind that pays for seeing a doctor when you are well, but where guidelines and regulations predominate and choice is restricted when you are seriously ill.

How can quality of care not be affected if the antibiotic or statin drug or MRI scan I feel you need isn't covered under your plan? How can ObamaCare be labeled a success when it adds layers of bureaucracy to an already overburdened system?

This month, even as Health and Human Services struggles to fix the health-exchange websites, the Obama administration announced that errors are occurring on the back end between the government and insurers at a rate of one out of four enrollees. This means that when you come to see me in January, assuming I actually participate in your narrow new ObamaCare network, there is a substantial chance you will never make it past the front desk because your new insurance will not be active.

Since insurers are being compelled to cover more folks with pre-existing conditions, with no lifetime limits, and to cover everyone in a family plan at least up to the age of 26—all popular provisions of the ACA—they reduce costs by cutting fees to vulnerable doctors while restricting the tests they can order. This makes the practice of quality medicine almost impossible, but it helps preserve an insurance company's bottom line while complying with a government mandate.

That copay that you no longer have to pay for colonoscopies or mammograms may have been the one bit of steady cash keeping in business many physicians and providers who perform them but work on very thin profit margins.

What should have been done? If the government felt that a significant segment of the population was underserved, they should have hired the doctors to serve them and built the clinics to serve them in—and mandated the scaled back, affordable insurance that covers severe illness only.

What ObamaCare gave us instead is a hybrid that should make both Democrats and Republicans, doctors and patients unhappy: big business combined with big government.

Dr. Siegel, a professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at New York University's Langone Medical Center, is a Fox News medical correspondent.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...52770123128660

California doctors revolt against Obamacare; 70 percent say they will boycott


Posted by Charleston Voice

Will Obamacare have to approve the fedgov issue medical degrees for 'doctors' with a vocational degree?

Tip: These doctors are the productive and capable ones, the best in a free market of competitive care. They do not lobby or rely on government as their agent to send them customers. Wednesday, December 18, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes (NaturalNews) Thanks to Obamacare, now - finally - "every American will have access to quality medical care," which, of course, is their "right." Only - that's wrong. On both counts. First, there is no inherent "right to health care," either in the Constitution or state laws, just as there is no inherent "right" to any other privately delivered product or service in the private sector. Secondly, as this website and others have argued for more than a couple of years, getting "access" to health insurance won't guarantee access to medical care. For that, you'd need access to medical professionals - doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants. But what if these professionals could not be had? As reported by the Washington Examiner: An estimated seven out of every 10 physicians in deep-blue California are rebelling against the state's Obamacare health insurance exchange and won't participate, the head of the state's largest medical association said. "It doesn't surprise me that there's a high rate of nonparticipation," said Dr. Richard Thorp, president of the California Medical Association. 'No other business would' lose money Thorp has been practicing primary care medicine for nearly four decades in a small town 90 minutes north of Sacramento. The group he heads up represents about one-third - 38,000 - of the roughly 104,000 doctors in the state. "We need some recognition that we're doing a service to the community. But we can't do it for free. And we can't do it at a loss. No other business would do that," he said. And yet, that is the expectation of the big government masterminds who brought us Obamacare. As the Examiner continues: California offers one of the lowest government reimbursement rates in the country -- 30 percent lower than federal Medicare payments. And reimbursement rates for some procedures are even lower. In other states, Medicare pays doctors $76 for return-office visits. But in California, Medi-Cal's reimbursement is $24, according to Dr. Theodore M. Mazer, a San Diego ear, nose and throat doctor. And when your service costs more to deliver than you are being paid, guess what? Two things happen: you opt out of that lousy reimbursement system, or you retire. In California and elsewhere, Obamacare is forcing physicians to make precisely those choices, which will mean less access for a much higher patient load. "Some physicians have been put in [California's] network and they were included basically without their permission," Lisa Folberg, CMA's vice president of medical and regulatory policy, told the Examiner. "They may be listed as actually participating, but not of their own volition," added Donald Waters, executive director of the Alameda-Contra Costa Medical Association. "This is a dirty little secret that is not really talked about as they promote Covered California," Waters continued, calling the state exchange's physician members list a "shell game," because "the vast majority" of them are not participating. Covered California officials discount any reports that most of the state's doctors will likely stay away. In fact, the Washington Examiner reported, the exchange believes that 85 percent of the state's doctors will participate. That may not coincide with reality, however. And besides, again - merely signing up for health insurance through an Obamacare exchange could be meaningless. Some docs moving to 'cash only' "Enrollment doesn't mean access, because there aren't enough doctors to take the low rates of Medicaid," said Alex Briscoe, health director for Alameda County Health Care Services Agency. "There aren't enough primary care physicians, period." Of those doctors not participating in the exchanges, the law could also force others to merely decide to opt-out of medicine altogether, as reported by Human Events: ObamaCare's defenders promised the law would increase patient access to care, but a closer look shows that increased regulations combined with higher demand for health services could cause many physicians to give up practicing medicine. Still, other physicians are moving to cash only - taking no insurance at all. "Patients should welcome this development. Not only does the move toward direct payment have the potential to reduce health costs - it could also yield higher-quality care," writes Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute, for Forbes in April. Sources: http://washingtonexaminer.com http://www.humanevents.com http://www.forbes.com

http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2013/12/california-doctors-revolt-against.html