Health

News regarding healthy living.

The Shocking Truth About ‘Clinical Death’ Every Organ Donor Should Know

2

 

Source: http://www.occupycorporatism.com

By Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism

The Shocking Truth About ‘Clinical Death’ Every Organ Donor Should Know

 

Orig.src_.Susanne.Posel_.Daily_.News-organ.donor_occupycorporatism

 

Jim Fritze, a Swedish citizen, recently suffered a stroke that left him paralyzed in the hospital. To his horror, he over-heard the doctors speaking with his “girlfriend and my relatives that there was no hope. I couldn’t do anything. I could only see and hear. I couldn’t move my body.”

Fritze was fully conscious and utterly unable to communicate with the hospital staff who assumed he was dead.

During the conversation, Fritze recalls the doctors discussed taking his organs for transplant purposes.

Just before Fritze was declared legally dead, a doctor looked over his X-rays and decided he would recover. To Fritze luck, the medical team backed off from beginning to remove the patient’s organs.

Five years ago, in the US, Colleen Burns was on the operating table with doctors about to take her organs (being an organ donor), when she opened her eyes. Burns was not dead.

After 3 days in a coma, doctors decided that Burns was deceased. A drug overdose of Xanax, Benadryl and a muscle relaxer and trip to the emergency room nearly cost Burns her life at the hands of medical professionals.

Burns was found unconscious in her apartment and rushed to the hospital. Because she was allegedly unresponsive, the medical staff pronounced her dead.

In fact, reports of a nurse noticing Burns curling her toes when tickled by other nurses was ignored.

A report by the New York Department of Health and Human Services (NYDHHS) states Burns’ case; as well as how NY frowns upon, yet has multiple cases of premature organ removal by doctors in hospitals.

The report stated: “Patient A [Burns] was moved to the OR suite for pursuit of the DCD [donation after cardiac death]. However, in the OR suite Patient A opened her eyes and looked at the lights; pursuit of DCD was subsequently halted.”

In 1968, the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Death , redefined “irreversible coma”. The report gave doctors the ability to declare a person dead in just a few minutes.

For a large majority of the medical establishment in years past, the definition of death was the patient’s loss of personhood and not necessarily defined by a heart that could not be restarted.

The Harvard authors defined a “permanently non-functioning brain” as:

• Unreceptively or unresponsitivity to “even the most painful stimuli”
• No movements or spontaneous breathing
• No reflexes
• Flat EEG

The results, according to the committee must be repeated 24 hours later to prove the patient was deceased. The only acceptations were hypothermia and drug intoxication because they can mimic conditions similar to death.

The criterion, set forth by the Harvard committee, was not based on any observations from patients, experiments on humans or animals.

The In 1981 the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws was based on the Harvard committee document.

Within 13 years, all 50 states in the US codified this 4 page article as the definition of clinical death.

The mainstream medical community assumes that the brain controls bodily functionality.

D. Alan Shewmon , pediatric neurologist at UCLA, rejects this idea.

Shewmon believes the definition of clinical death needs revision. He says “that most integrative functions of the brain are actually not somatically integrating, and, conversely, most integrative functions of the body are not brain-mediated.”

In a 150 page document, Shewmon explains brain-dead patients still have heart beats. In one case, a patient survived more than 2 decades after brain death.

The Harvard committee’s motivation for lowering the standards for clinical death may have been organ harvesting through transplants.

Joanne Lynn , geriatrician and director of the Altarum Center for Elder Life Care and Advanced Illness says: “Advocate groups just want the organs. Transplant debate has ignored the donors and focused on the recipients.”

The reality of transplants can be summed up in a comment made by Michael Divitta , professor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Divitta said that transplant donors are “pretty dead” before their organs are extracted.

The beating-heart cadavers (BHCs) are what Divitta refers to as “brain dead” who are “warm and pink and breathing.” These people may look dead, but they are far from it.

In the medical establishment, the BHCs are considered a subspecies designed specifically to keep the organs fresh for future owners. These patients are alive, respond to pain, yet they are considered conventionally dead.

Corporations are now preserving the nearly dead to preserve the organs. Doctors contend that once the oxygen flow is disrupted, the organs begin to decay.

The qualification process of declaring the patient dead, obtaining consent to extract organs from the patient by family can take hours. Then the cadaver is considered a BHC.

However a BHC could have another heart attack before the organs are removed. These patients are only clinically dead.

Steven Ross of Cooper University Hospital and Dan Teres of Baystate Medical Center assert that BHCs are “alive”.

Image credit: http://www.occupycorporatism.com


About the author:

Susanne Posel Chief Editor, Investigative Journalist OccupyCorporatism.com Radio Host: The Region 10 Report, Live Thursdays 1-3PM PST on American Freedom Radio.

 

 

School Science Project Reveals High Levels Of Fukushima Nuclear Radiation in Grocery Store Seafood

0

 

Source: http://thetruthwins.com

By Michael Snyder

School Science Project Reveals High Levels Of Fukushima Nuclear Radiation in Grocery Store Seafood

 

Fukushima-Radiation-University-Of-New-South-Wales-450x211

 

A Canadian high school student named Bronwyn Delacruz never imagined that her school science project would make headlines all over the world.  But that is precisely what has happened.  Using a $600 Geiger counter purchased by her father, Delacruz measured seafood bought at local grocery stores for radioactive contamination.  What she discovered was absolutely stunning.  Much of the seafood, particularly the products that were made in China, tested very high for radiation.  So is this being caused by nuclear radiation from Fukushima?  Is the seafood that we are eating going to give us cancer and other diseases?  The American people deserve the truth, but as you will see below, the U.S. and Canadian governments are not even testing imported seafood for radiation.  To say that this is deeply troubling would be a massive understatement.

In fact, what prompted Bronwyn Delacruz to conduct her science project was the fact that the Canadian government stopped testing imported seafood for radiation in 2012

Alberta high-school student Bronwyn Delacruz loves sushi, but became concerned last summer after learning how little food inspection actually takes place on some of its key ingredients.
 
The Grade 10 student from Grande Prairie said she was shocked to discover that, in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) stopped testing imported foods for radiation in 2012.

And what should be a major red flag for authorities is the fact that the seafood with the highest radiation is coming from China

Armed with a $600 Geiger counter bought by her dad, Delacruz studied a variety of seafoods – particularly seaweeds – as part of an award-winning science project that she will take to a national fair next month.
 
“Some of the kelp that I found was higher than what the International Atomic Energy Agency sets as radioactive contamination, which is 1,450 counts over a 10-minute period,” she said. “Some of my samples came up as 1,700 or 1,800.
 
Delacruz said the samples that “lit up” the most were products from China that she bought in local grocery stores.

It is inexcusable that the Canadian government is not testing this seafood.  It isn’t as if they don’t know that it is radioactive.  Back in 2012, the Vancouver Sun reported that cesium-137 was being found in a very high percentage of the fish that Japan was selling to Canada…

• 73 percent of the mackerel

• 91 percent of the halibut

• 92 percent of the sardines

• 93 percent of the tuna and eel

• 94 percent of the cod and anchovies

• 100 percent of the carp, seaweed, shark and monkfish

So why was radiation testing for seafood shut down in Canada in 2012?

Someone out there needs to answer some very hard questions.

Meanwhile, PBS reporter Miles O’Brien has pointed out the extreme negligence of the U.S. government when it comes to testing seafood for Fukushima radiation.  The following comes from a recent EcoWatch article

O’Brien also introduces us to scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute who have been testing waters around the reactors—as well as around the Pacific Rim—to confirm the levels of Fukushima fallout, especially of cesium.
 
These scientists are dedicated and competent. But they are also being forced to do this investigation on their own, raising small amounts of money from independent sources. They were, explains lead scientist Ken Buesseler, turned down for even minimal federal support by five agencies key to our radiation protection. Thus, despite a deep and widespread demand for this information, no federal agency is conducting comprehensive, on-the-ground analyses of how much Fukushima radiation has made its way into our air and oceans.
 
In fact, very soon after Fukushima began to blow, President Obama assured the world that radiation coming to the U.S. would be minuscule and harmless. He had no scientific proof that this would be the case. And as O’Brien’s eight-minute piece shows all too clearly, the “see no evil, pay no damages” ethos is at work here. The government is doing no monitoring of radiation levels in fish, and information on contamination of the ocean is almost entirely generated by underfunded researchers like Buesseler.

video news report in which O’Brien discusses these issues is posted below…

YouTube Preview Image

It is the job of the authorities to keep us safe, and the Fukushima nuclear disaster was the worst nuclear disaster in human history.

So why aren’t they doing testing?

Why aren’t they checking to make sure that this radiation is not getting into our food chain?

The Japanese are doing testing off the coast of Japan, and one fish that was recently caught off the coast of the Fukushima prefecture was discovered to have 124 times the safe level of radioactive cesium.

So why are all the authorities in North America just assuming that the fish are going to be perfectly fine on this side of the Pacific?

One test that was conducted in California discovered that 15 out of 15 Bluefin tuna were contaminated with radiation from Fukushima.

So how can the authorities say “don’t worry, just eat the seafood”?

Everyone agrees that a plume of radioactive water has been moving from Fukushima toward the west coast of the United States.

According to researchers at the University of South Wales, that plume is going to hit our shores at some point during 2014…

The first radioactive ocean plume released by the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster will finally be reaching the shores of the United States some time in 2014, according to a new study from the University of New South Wales — a full three or so years after the date of the disaster.

The following graphic comes from that study…

Fukushima-Radiation-University-Of-New-South-Wales-450x211

And multiple independent tests have already confirmed that levels of nuclear radiation are being detected on California beaches that are more than 10 times the normal level.

Clearly something is happening.

So why are the U.S. and Canadian governments willingly looking the other way?


This article first appeared here at The Truth.

About the author: Michael T. Snyder is a former Washington D.C. attorney who now publishes The Truth. His new thriller entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.

 

3dnew3-240x300

Image credit: http://thetruthwins.com
 

Doctor Explains: ADHD Only Exists to Make Money for Big Pharma

0

 

Source: https://www.occupycorporatism.com

By Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism

Doctor Explains: ADHD Only Exists to Make Money for Big Pharma

 

Orig.src_.Susanne.Posel_.Daily_.News-ritalin.adhd_.does_.not_.exist_occupycorporatism-600x400

 

Richard Saul, behavioral neurologist at Castle and Connolly Best Doctor in Chicago, does not believe that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) exists.

Saul explains: “I have found more than 20 conditions that can lead to symptoms of ADHD, each of which requires its own approach to treatment. Raising a generation of children—and now adults—who can’t live without stimulants is no solution.”

According to a new report , the number of adults taking a pharmacological drug for ADHD has risen to 53% in the young 20-somethings.

Saul explains that ADHD has become “an easy catchall phrase that saves time for doctors.”

In this world “as a population, [we] are more distracted today than ever before” and Saul is concerned that the label ADHD is being tossed around for the profit of the drug companies.

In the 1930s, Charles Bradley began using benzedine on children who were diagnosed with behavioral problems.

Bradley was able to get these test patients to improve their performance with this drug and paved the way for other psychotropic answers to children’s natural tendency to be full of energy and short of attention.

In fact, Bradley set the foundation for the pharmacological treatment of ADHD with benzedine.

Because ADHD was gaining popularity, more drugs such as Ritalin and Cylert became available and increased the stimulants children were being given to suppress their innately tenacious behavior.

In the 1980s adults were also targeted through the DSM III which “introduced a classification for adults with the condition.”

This led to more Americans covering up symptoms with stimulants without a worry of how the developing human brain will handle being synthetically altered.

Saul said: “Today, the fifth edition of the DSM only requires one to exhibit five of 18 possible symptoms to qualify for an ADHD diagnosis. If you haven’t seen the list, look it up. It will probably bother you. How many of us can claim that we have difficulty with organization or a tendency to lose things; that we are frequently forgetful or distracted or fail to pay close attention to details? Under these subjective criteria, the entire U.S. population could potentially qualify. We’ve all had these moments, and in moderate amounts they’re a normal part of the human condition.”

One good reason to keep people on stimulants under the guise of disease is because stimulants are highly addictive. Saul explains: “The body stops producing the appropriate levels of neurotransmitters that ADHD meds replace — a trademark of addictive substances. I worry that a generation of Americans won’t be able to concentrate without this medication; Big Pharma is understandably not as concerned.”

When a patient is taking stimulants for ADHD, the effects can range from:

• Increased anxiety
• Depressive moods
• Weight loss due to appetite suppression
• Erectile dysfunction

Saul warns that stimulants are a “short-term” answer which is meant to “serve as Band-Aids at best, masking and sometimes exacerbating the source of the problem.”

To break down the misconception, Saul explains that people diagnosed with ADHD are either 1) of a normal level of distraction considering our modern environment, 2) have more acute difficulties are require “individual treatment”.

Saul recommends to his patients diagnosed with ADHD:

• Healthy diet
• Increased exercise
• At least 8 hours of quality sleep
• Minimize caffeine intake
• Monitor cell-phone use
• Find something to be passionate about

Michael Kohn, staff specialist who makes a living working with ADHD diagnosed children commented: “[Saul] is saying, ‘My personal experience outweighs all the scientific evidence available to people, my information is going to be more persuasive because it creates fear and concern.”’

Image credit: https://www.occupycorporatism.com


About the author:

Susanne Posel Chief Editor, Investigative Journalist OccupyCorporatism.com Radio Host: The Region 10 Report, Live Thursdays 1-3PM PST on American Freedom Radio.

NY Hospital Says Don’t Worry: 4000 Patients Exposed to HIV & Hepatitis

0

 

Source: https://www.occupycorporatism.com

By Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism

 

NY Hospital Says Don’t Worry: 4000 Patients Exposed to HIV & Hepatitis

 

Orig.src_.Susanne.Posel_.Daily_.News-insulin.pen_.hiv_.hempatitis_occupycorporatism-600x340

 

South Nassau Communities Hospital (SNCH) in New York mailed more than 4,000 letters to patients who were potentially exposed to HIV and Hepatitis while staying at their facility.

The method of potential contraction would have been insulin received via injection with an insulin pen that may have been contaminated, according to questioning officials.

SNCH claimed those insulin pens contain more than one dose and could have been administered to more than one patient; thereby possibly transmitting HIV and Hepatitis to patients.

Officials stated that these single use pens were being reused between March 2011 to January 2014.

Cynthia Shub, one of the patients who received the letter from SNCH commented : “I see ‘shared’ and ‘patients’ – the neighbors could have heard me scream. I see hepatitis, I see HIV, I’m like, ‘Are you kidding?’”

Damian Becker, spokesman for SNCH stated to the press that the actual risk to patients is “extremely low’ but if those patients want to have testing done, they should remember to proceed with an “abundance of caution”.

One visitor to SNCH explained that “it’s actually very scary, because you come to the hospital when you’re sick, and you don’t hope to get even worse while you’re inside the hospital.”

In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned healthcare workers against using insulin pens for multiple patients and that these pens were intended to be single use only.

SNCH said that they have changed their procedure when administering insulin pens and are switching to single use pens for the future.

Image credit: https://www.occupycorporatism.com


About the author:

Susanne Posel Chief Editor, Investigative Journalist OccupyCorporatism.com Radio Host: The Region 10 Report, Live Thursdays 1-3PM PST on American Freedom Radio.

Hot Pockets Recalls 8 Million Pounds of Meat Due to “Diseased and Unsound Animals”

0

 

Source: http://libertyblitzkrieg.com

By Michael Krieger

Hot Pockets Recalls 8 Million Pounds of Meat Due to “Diseased and Unsound Animals”

 

Last year saw a great number of widely publicized instances of food fraud and general nastiness when it came to the various items many of us regularly put in our bodies. From “fake tuna,” to rat meat in the streets of Shanghai, to alcohol in New Jersey diluted with “river water,” the list was seemingly endless.

While 2014 has been off to a slow start, it appears the corporate food industry in America is trying to make up for lost time. According to a news release from the USDA on Valentine’s Day titled: “California Firm Recalls Unwholesome Meat Products Produced Without the Benefit of Full Inspection,” we discover that:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14, 2014 – Rancho Feeding Corporation, a Petaluma, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 8,742,700 pounds, because it processed diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection. Thus, the products are adulterated, because they are unsound, unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food and must be removed from commerce, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

Oh, and by the way, this is a Class I recall. What does that mean?

Screen-Shot-2014-02-19-at-5.18.53-PM

Basically if you live California, Florida, Illinois, Oregon, Texas and Washington you should stay away from Hot Pockets.

Scratch that. You should stay away from Hot Pockets no matter where you live. Forever.

Full USDA release here.

Follow Mike on Twitter.

Dark Secrets of Artificial Sweeteners Revealed with Mike Adams

1

 

Dark Secrets of Artificial Sweeteners Revealed with Mike Adams

 

2-18-2014 8-02-54 PM

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by NextNewsNetwork

NATION | Could dangerous chemicals be hiding in the foods Americans eat and drink every day? They just may be more common than you think. For thousands of years, people have sweetened food and drinks with honey and sugar. Some people, concerned with calories, use artificial sweeteners, like aspartame. Some early sugar substitutes were found to cause cancer, and have other ill effects on health.

Many critics charge these artificial additives pose dangers of their own. Many people point out unusual ingredients that go into such sweeteners. Splenda, for instance, is manufactured using chlorine. Skeptics say such food additives also play havoc with human metabolism. Aspartame has even been charged with causing brain tumors, heart attacks and seizures.

Mike Adams is known as the Health Ranger. He is an activist for healthy foods. Adams is one of the leading voices in America about the dangers of artificial sweeteners.

Adams is our guest on the show today. We will talk about what is really in the foods we eat every day. We will also discuss the history of the artificial sweetener industry, and health effects of the chemicals. The future of the industry will be covered, and we’ll learn what you can do to ensure better health for yourself and your family.

Download your free Next News “Heroes & Villains” Poster here: http://nextnewsnetwork.com/the-2013-h…

Donate USD: http://nnn.is/donate-dollars
Donate BTC: http://nnn.is/donate-bitcoin

LIVE: http://NextNewsNetwork.com
Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
Sub: http://NNN.is/the_new_media
Meet the Next News Team: http://youtu.be/2QnNKwQ2WkY
Hashtag: #N3

 

Presidential Cancer Panel Demands More Children Receive HPV Vaccine

1

 

Source: http://www.occupycorporatism.com

By Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism

Presidential Cancer Panel Demands More Children Receive HPV Vaccine

 

hpv.vaccine_occupycorporatism-600x337

 

The President’s Cancer Panel (PCP) is demanding that federal and state authorities spend more resources into ensuring that children are inoculated with the human papillomavirus virus vaccine to prevent reproductive cancer development.

HPV vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline Merck are expecting profit surges because of their products: Cervix and Gardasil.

Currently, estimates assume that a 3rd of teenage girls have been exposed to the HPV vaccines available, while only 7% of boys have received the inoculation.

Barbara Rimer, chair of the PCP said : “We are confident that if HPV vaccination for girls and boys is made a public health priority, hundreds of thousands will be protected from these HPV-associated diseases and cancers over their lifetimes.”

Young men are being targeted for HPV as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says is correlated with the development of genital warts; as well as cancer of the throat, tonsils, base of the tongue, anus and penis.

Gardasil, the vaccination being given to both young men and women to prevent HPV, is manufactured by Merck Pharmaceuticals.

Information in the insert for Gardasil states that the vaccine has not been tested for carcinogenicity. In this instance, there is no evidentiary reason for Gardasil to be used to combat HPV or as a preventative for reproductive cancers.

According to Dr. Charlotte Haug on the validity of Gardasil: “There is another serious question that may be answered sooner: what effect will the vaccine have on the other cancer-causing strains of HPV? Nature never leaves a void, so if HPV-16 and HPV-18 are suppressed by an effective vaccine, other strains of the virus will take their place. The question is, will these strains cause cervical cancer?”

Haug continues: “Results from clinical trials are not encouraging. Vaccinated women show an increased number of precancerous lesions caused by strains of HPV other than HPV-16 and HPV-18. The results are not statistically significant, but if the trend is real – and further clinical trials should tell us in a few years – there is reason for serious concern.”
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreed to approve Gardasil in the US under the condition that all-inclusive research were conducted before it would be placed on a children’s scheduled vaccination program.

The contract between the FDA and Merck states: “You have committed to conduct a study in collaboration with the Norwegian Government, if GARDASIL is approved in the European Union and the Government of Norway incorporates HPV vaccination into its national guidelines, to assess the impact of HPV vaccination on the following in Norway … to assess whether administration of GARDASIL will result in replacement of these diseases due to vaccine HPV types with diseases due to non-vaccine HPV types.”

In studies there has been a palatiable increase in those who are exposed to HPV who have also received the Gardasil vaccine to develop cancer.

It was found that in “peer-reviewed analysis and studies many of them on the FDA, NCI and CDC web sites point out the dangers of many of the vaccine ingredients including the potential for the HPV vaccines to increase the risk for pre-cancerous lesions if adolescents have been previously exposed to the human papillomavirus and then get vaccinated: 44.6% increase post Gardasil.”

Most shocking is that in a test taken from 13 samples of Gardasil, it was discovered that “all the samples contained recombinant (genetically modified) HPV DNA which was firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant.”

This recombinant HPV DNA is considered bio-hazardous with effects unknown to the medical community.

It was stated : “Based on medical literature and some of the FDA/Merck’s own publications, adventitious (coming from an outside source) DNA in an injectable protein-based vaccine may increase the risk of autoimmune disorders and gene mutation which may lead to malignancies.”

Image credit: http://www.occupycorporatism.com


About the author:

Susanne Posel Chief Editor, Investigative Journalist OccupyCorporatism.com Radio Host: The Region 10 Report, Live Thursdays 1-3PM PST on American Freedom Radio.

 

19 Statistics About The Drugging Of America That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe

0

 

Source: http://endoftheamericandream.com

By Michael Snyder

19 Statistics About The Drugging Of America That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe

 

Pills-Photo-by-Tibor-Kadek-300x300The American people are the most drugged people in the history of the planet.  Illegal drugs get most of the headlines, but the truth is that the number of Americans that are addicted to legal drugs is far greater than the number of Americans that are addicted to illegal drugs.  As you will see below, close to 70 percent of all Americans are currently on at least one prescription drug.  In addition, there are 60 million Americans that “abuse alcohol” and 22 million Americans that use illegal drugs.  What that means is that almost everyone that you meet is going to be on something.  That sounds absolutely crazy but it is true.  We are literally being drugged out of our minds.  In fact, as you will read about below, there are 70 million Americans that are taking “mind-altering drugs” right now.  If it seems like most people cannot think clearly these days, it is because they can’t.  We love our legal drugs and it is getting worse with each passing year.  And considering the fact that big corporations are making tens of billions of dollars peddling their drugs to the rest of us, don’t expect things to change any time soon.  The following are 19 statistics about the drugging of America that are almost too crazy to believe…

#1 An astounding 70 million Americans are taking legal mind-altering drugs right now.

#2 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, doctors wrote more than 250 million prescriptions for antidepressants during 2010.

#3 According to a study conducted by the Mayo Clinic, nearly 70 percent of all Americans are on at least one prescription drug.  An astounding 20 percent of all Americans are on at least five prescription drugs.

#4 Americans spent more than 280 billion dollars on prescription drugs during 2013.

#5 According to the CDC, approximately 9 out of every 10 Americans that are at least 60 years old say that they have taken at least one prescription drug within the last month.

#6 There are 60 million Americans that “abuse alcohol”.

#7 According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 22 million Americans use illegal drugs.

#8 Incredibly, more than 11 percent of all Americans that are 12 years of age or older admit that they have driven home under the influence of alcohol at least once during the past year.

#9 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is an unintentional drug overdose death in the United States every 19 minutes.

#10 In the United States today, prescription painkillers kill more Americans than heroin and cocaine combined.

#11 According to the CDC, approximately three quarters of a million people a year are rushed to emergency rooms in the United States because of adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs.

#12 According to Alternet, “11 of the 12 new-to-market drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration were priced above $100,000 per-patient per-year” in 2012.

#13 The percentage of women taking antidepressants in America is higher than in any other country in the world.

#14 Many of these antidepressants contain warnings that “suicidal thoughts” are one of the side effects that should be expected.  The suicide rate for Americans between the ages of 35 and 64 rose by close to 30 percent between 1999 and 2010.  The number of Americans that are killed by suicide now exceeds the number of Americans that die as a result of car accidents every year.

#15 In 2010, the average teen in the United States was taking 1.2 central nervous system drugs.  Those are the kinds of drugs which treat conditions such as ADHD and depression.

#16 Children in the United States are three times more likely to be prescribed antidepressants as children in Europe are.

#17 A shocking Government Accountability Office report discovered that approximately one-third of all foster children in the United States are on at least one psychiatric drug.

#18 A survey conducted for the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that more than 15 percent of all U.S. high school seniors abuse prescription drugs.

#19 It turns out that dealing drugs is extremely profitable.  The 11 largest pharmaceutical companies combined to rake in approximately $85,000,000,000 in profits in 2012.

In America today, doctors are trained that there are just two potential solutions to any problem.  Either you prescribe a pill or you cut someone open.  Surgery and drugs are pretty much the only alternatives they offer us.

And an endless barrage of television commercials have trained all of us to think that there is a “pill for every problem”.

Are you in pain?

Just take a pill.

Are you feeling blue?

Just take a pill.

Do you need a spark in your marriage?

Just take a pill.

And most Americans assume that all of these pills are perfectly safe.

After all, the government would never approve something that wasn’t safe, right?

Sadly, what most Americans don’t realize is that there is a revolving door between big pharmaceutical corporations and the government agencies that supposedly “regulate” them.  Many of those that are now in charge of our “safety” have spent their entire careers peddling legal drugs to all of us.

We have become a nation of drugged out zombies, and it is all perfectly legal.  The funny thing is that many of these “legal drugs” have just slightly different formulations from their “illegal” counterparts.

If more Americans understood what they were actually taking, would that cause them to stop?

Perhaps some would, but for the most part Americans are totally in love with their drugs and giving them up would not be easy.

Just ask anyone that has tried.

So what do you think about the drugging of America?

 

This article first appeared here at the The American Dream.  Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.

 

 

3dnew3-240x300

Image credit: http://endoftheamericandream.com

Obamacare: The Final Payment – Raiding the Assets of Low-Income and Poor Americans

0

 

Source: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Obamacare: The Final Payment

Raiding the Assets of Low-Income and Poor Americans

 

Paul Craig RobertsSince writing “Obamacare: Devils in the Details” posted on this site on February 3, 2013, I have investigated in detail other aspects of the insurance industry’s program to bring health care to Americans. In this article I explain estate recovery to which poorer Americans herded by Obamacare into Medicaid are subject. In violation of moral philosopher John Rawls’ second principle of justice, some of the poorest Americans will pay the highest cost of health care as they, and they alone, are subject to having the family home and any other assets they might possess confiscated by the state in order to reimburse Obamacare for the cost of their medical expenses. The compassionate rhetoric aside, Obamacare makes the poor pay the most.

Under what was deceptively named the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, which is unaffordable for the patient in more ways than one, beginning January 1, 2014, citizens without health insurance must pay a tax penalty to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Qualified individuals and families with incomes between 138 and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) can shop for commercial insurance policies at a Health Insurance Marketplace (an exchange) and may be eligible for a subsidy from the government to help pay for a plan. Those with incomes at or below 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level will be tossed into Medicaid unless there are specific reasons why they would not be eligible.

The Federal Poverty Level incomes for different family sizes for 2014 established by the Department of Health and Human Services can be found here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm To determine whether you will be put into Medicaid, find the Federal Poverty Level annual income that applies to your family size for 2014 from the HHS tables and multiply the amount by 1.38. If your annual income is not larger than this amount, into Medicaid you go. For example, to avoid being put into Medicaid by Obamacare, a single individual in the 48 states and D.C. needs an income that is more than 138 percent of $11,670 (more than $16,105). A family of four needs an income that is more than 138 percent of $23,850 (more than $32,913). Poverty level incomes in Alaska and Hawaii are higher due to the higher cost of living in those states.

You won’t find estate recovery in the ACA. It’s in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 1993)–a federal statute which applies to Medicaid, and, if you are enrolled in Medicaid, it will apply to you.

Estate Recovery

OBRA 1993 requires all states that receive Medicaid funding to seek recovery from the estates of deceased Medicaid patients for medical services received in a nursing home or other long-term care institution, home- and community-based services and related hospital and prescription drug services regardless of age. It also allows, at state option, recovery for all services used in the Medicaid state plan at age 55 or older. At minimum, states must pursue recovery from the probate estate which includes property that passes to heirs under state probate law, but states can expand the definition of estate to allow recovery from property that bypasses probate. This means states can use procedures for direct recovery from bank accounts and other funds. The state keeps a running tally, and even if you have a will, your heirs are chopped liver. Estate recovery can be exempted or deferred in certain situations after your death, but the regulations for this are limited and complicated with multitudes of conditions.

Your estate is what you own when you die–your home, other real estate in which you have a legal interest, personal property, bank accounts, annuities and so on. For cash-strapped states, recovery provides an income stream, and with the expansion of Medicaid states will be in dire need of money, particularly in the current economy.

You must first understand that if an exchange determines you are eligible for Medicaid, you have no other choice. Code for exchanges specifies that an applicant is not eligible for a subsidized plan to the extent that he or she is eligible for coverage under Medicaid. Therefore, when you apply, if you are found eligible, you will be tossed into Medicaid. You can also be auto-enrolled in Medicaid if you are presumed eligible through a database such as SNAP (food stamps). If you are enrolled in a subsidized private plan through an exchange and your circumstances change making you eligible for Medicaid, in you go.

Obamacare revises Medicaid regulations in order to make more Americans eligible for Medicaid. Revised regulations include an increase in age and income limitations, and the asset test no longer applies. Prior to these revisions, applicants were not eligible for Medicaid if they had more than a specific dollar amount in assets. But, under Obamacare, those who likely own a home or have savings set aside–for example, early retirees or people who have lost their jobs and, as a result, are in a low income bracket–will find themselves in Medicaid, and their assets will be looted by the government when they die for medical services used at age 55 and up.

Estate recovery can have a damaging impact on low-income and poor Americans. It is a pernicious death tax on those who have the least and are the most vulnerable. Often, the only asset they have is the family home and what’s in it, and, for some, this has been the family home for several generations. The threat of losing the home causes people to forego health care.

Home equity is part of a deceased Medicaid recipient’s estate and except under certain circumstances is subject to estate recovery. Surviving family members may either sell the home and use the proceeds to satisfy the Medicaid claim or, if they wish to keep the home in the family, they can satisfy the claim with their own personal funds. This Medicaid clawback not only confiscates family property but also robs people of their dignity as Medicaid allows only an amount it considers reasonable for services provided by a funeral home and burial costs. In some states, funeral homes are responsible for notifying Medicaid if there is excess money in a burial trust fund so it can also be pillaged.

Some might think it fair that those who are enrolled in Medicaid pay back the benefits they received. However, under a mandate that requires all Americans to be covered by health insurance or pay a tax penalty to the IRS, estate recovery is unconscionable since Obamacare offers no other viable option for this income-segment of the population. It also discriminates by age since only Medicaid enrollees who use benefits in the state plan at age 55 and up are subject to estate recovery, but those who use benefits at age 54 or less are home free unless they receive long-term care. Under federal law, discrimination is not permitted on the basis of age, but, obviously, the U.S. government turns a blind eye to to its own law. Perhaps, when states need more money due to the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid, and as the jobless economy continues causing more people to be eligible, age discrimination will be broadened to 45 and up.

You may be eligible for an exemption from having to pay a penalty for being uninsured if you meet specific requirements–for example, if you are in jail, if you have a sincerely-held religious belief that prevents you from seeking and obtaining medical care, if you are eligible for Medicaid under its expansion but live in a state that opted not to expand Medicaid, if you are a member of an Indian tribe, and several other situations. But there is no exemption for people who refuse to sign up for Obamacare because of the Medicaid estate recovery program.

Since the plans at the Obamacare exchanges are income-based, you may be put into Medicaid when you apply for insurance. Or, you may start off enrolled in a subsidized plan, confident that estate recovery won’t apply to you, but several months or a year later, due to a change in your circumstances, find you have been tossed into Medicaid. You can increase your income in order to avoid Medicaid, but it would have to remain over 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level throughout the taxable year. If paying for insurance will deprive you of food or shelter, you can try filing for a hardship exemption, that is, if the government site is working smoothly, and if you can find the form. It is important to understand how this income-based scheme works so you can figure out how best to survive the many caveats of Obamacare. To learn more and what to watch out for, read my lesson on how Obamacare works.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/02/03/obamacare-a-primer/

Estate recovery was not an unintended consequence of Obamacare. The House Ways & Means Committee and The House Energy & Commerce Committee share jurisdiction over health care, including Medicare and Medicaid, and both worked extensively on Obamacare. So, don’t bother thinking that the members of these committees didn’t know that estate recovery would impact millions of Americans who would be tossed into Medicaid. The asset test was dropped and the age limit was increased explicitly in order to expand Medicaid. Yet, did We the People hear any concern about estate recovery? Certainly not in the many floor speeches given by Democrats as well as Republicans or from the media.

Obama stated during his 2008 presidential campaign that transparency would be the leverage needed to ensure that people stay involved in the national health care reform process. The expansion of Medicaid was part of the process. Did Obama or your representatives tell you that Medicaid, depending on your age, is a loan subject to deferred payment by your estate? Did they tell you the government subsidy for a private plan at an exchange is a loan, that must be repaid if your income increases? Transparency was highly selective. The bait was shown but not the hook.

Obama also often made the point that the public should receive the same level of coverage and care as members of Congress. Medicaid is hardly the same level of coverage and care, but, aside from that, tell us, Mr. Obama, because your health care is funded by taxpayers, will your estate be subject to recovery?

The fact that Obamacare did not revise existing federal statute–in other words, it retained estate recovery–most certainly undermines the compassionate rhetoric about helping low-income and poor Americans.

Official Response To Estate Recovery Inquiry

In October 2009 during the national health care reform debacle, eight public-spirited citizens, dismayed as they watched Obamacare morph into deception, signed and faxed a letter to 28 members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, including chairs and ranking members of the various health care policy committees working on Obamacare. The letter addressed “Discrimination, Estate Recovery & Exploitation in National Mandated Health Insurance.” Other recipients included President Barack Obama; Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services; and Nancy Ann Deparle, Director of White House Office of Health Reform.

The letter pointed out that absence of choice for Medicaid-eligible citizens other than a costly penalty is discrimination based on economic status. It also stated that the Medicaid estate recovery program discriminates by age and against those who own a home and have other assets versus those who do not. The letter asked if OBRA 1993 had been amended so states would not be allowed to recover assets or place liens on property under national mandated health insurance, and, if there was no amendment, why not?

The citizens who sent the letter received no response from Congress or the Obama administration. The government that comprises ObamaNation, Inc. serves only its money masters.

Depending on their state of residency, Americans can sign up for Obamacare coverage with a federal or with a state exchange. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is the federal office that established the federal exchange at healthcare.gov at which residents of the 36 states that chose not to use a state exchange can sign up for Obamacare. (New Mexico and Idaho have state exchanges but are currently using the federal one.) Fourteen states and the District of Columbia submitted proposals, which were approved by CMS, to run their own exchanges.

In June 2013 a letter was sent to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services by a well-informed citizen pointing out that the Medicaid Manual prepared by CMS to provide guidance for states contains procedural rules intended to ensure that individuals are informed about estate recovery before they complete the application process.

There are variations in the ways in which states implement estate recovery, depending upon their Medicaid program and state laws. However, Federal law requires all states to incorporate the following protections for Medicaid recipients into the design of their estate recovery program:

— The State should notify Medicaid recipients about the estate recovery program during their initial application for Medicaid eligibility and annual re-determination process.
— The State must notify affected survivors about the initiation of estate recovery and give them an opportunity to claim an exemption based on hardship.
— The State must establish procedures and criteria to waive recovery if it would cause undue hardship.

The letter went on to say that the final CMS Health Insurance Marketplace application (healthcare.gov) notifies applicants about Medicaid’s right to pursue and recover any money from other health insurance, legal settlements or other third parties but does not disclose estate recovery. Since estate recovery is one of the terms of the Medicaid contract, it is deceptive to omit disclosure of this practice. CMS was asked to provide the reasons for this omission.

CMS responded evasively to the concerned citizen’s question. CMS claimed that the Health Insurance Marketplace application at healthcare.gov does not disclose Medicaid’s right to claim against the estate, because CMS wanted to provide flexibility to state Medicaid agencies as to how each one notifies applicants about estate recovery. Some states have developed pamphlets to address common estate recovery questions or devote a portion of a general Medicaid pamphlet to the subject. Some states also post their state plans, perhaps with additional explanatory text, on their web sites.

Even if we take this claim at face value, it reflects a cavalier attitude. As health insurance is mandated with low-income earners and the very poor having no alternative to Medicaid, certainly those subject to estate recovery have a right to be notified in advance of being herded into this insurance plan.

It is well worth knowing about estate recovery before you sign up at an Obamacare exchange so you can make an informed choice as to whether or not you want to get trapped in this Byzantine sinkhole or steer clear, particularly if you think your income may relegate you to coverage under Medicaid now or in the future. Unfortunately, it appears that CMS as well as some of the state-based exchanges, such as Covered California, decided you don’t deserve to know about this particular term of the Medicaid contract when you apply and sign on the dotted line. So, as of this writing, there is no mention of estate recovery on the Obamacare application at healthcare.gov that services residents of the 36 states which use the federal exchange nor for Californians, residents of a state with a robust estate recovery program! Some states disclose estate recovery on their state exchange applications for Obamacare, and others do not.

Non-disclosure of estate recovery on an Obamacare application does not mean that the state in which you reside will not bill your estate for the cost of your medical treatment under Medicaid. It merely means that a conscious choice was made not to let you know that one consequence of signing up for Obamacare could be the loss of your home.

There are a few states that recover for long-term care only. It would be in your best interest to find out your state’s recovery policy so you know where you stand. You should also remain alert to changes.

Here is what you need to know:

When you complete the application at healthcare.gov, it is assumed that when you submit it, you are fully informed and agree to all terms. Submission of the application is akin to signing a contract. Your signature not only means you have provided true answers to all the questions under penalty of perjury, but also that you understand and agree to all the rules and conditions. However, by not disclosing estate recovery CMS expunged your right to make an informed decision. Therefore, you may not realize that your estate can become government property because Obamacare forces you into Medicaid if your income is less than the threshold for a subsidized premium.

When you sign a loan note at a bank, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions of the contract between you and the bank, and these are disclosed in the note. The banker doesn’t say to you, “Just sign here and we’ll let you know the terms later. You can pick up a pamphlet at our local office or request that one be mailed to you. Or, you can visit our website and see if you can find the page that tells you what you just signed yourself into. Thank you. We appreciate your business.”

Even if your circumstances change such that you are no longer eligible for Medicaid and you are shifted into a subsidized Obamacare plan, any Medicaid expenditures you incurred remain as claims on your estate.

According to the federal procedural rules, the state should notify Medicaid recipients about the estate recovery program during their initial application for Medicaid eligibility. Initial is the operative word. It does not mean after an individual has been put into Medicaid. Since healthcare.gov is the initial point of contact for applicants who reside in one of the 36 states using the federal exchange, there is no legitimate excuse for nondisclosure of estate recovery. Healthcare.gov is where the buck stops. The application should contain notification of estate recovery. The same is true for state-based exchanges that omitted this disclosure on their Obamacare applications.

Like terms of a contract, laws are supposed to be known. In Western civilization people are not supposed to be accountable to secret laws or to secret clauses in contracts that they sign. Clearly, if Western legal practice holds, estate recovery is impermissible due to the lack of notice. Only the corrupt architects of Obamacare believe that it is fair to confiscate the assets of an individual or a family without notification that the health care they receive can be charged to their estate.

Liens

Some state-based exchanges requested permission from CMS to add information to their application and chose to include disclosure of estate recovery. The Massachusetts Health Connector application not only includes disclosure of estate recovery, but also goes above and beyond, notifying applicants of liens. “To the extent permitted by law, MassHealth (Medicaid) may place a lien against any real estate owned by eligible persons or in which eligible persons have a legal interest. If MassHealth puts a lien against that property and it is sold, money from the sale of that property may be used to repay MassHealth for medical services provided.”

There are pre-death liens and post-death liens, and whether or not placement of a lien is disclosed on an Obamacare application, this practice is permitted in all states. For more on liens, you should consult an attorney–if you can afford one–or seek information online. It’s not pretty.

Renewal Of Coverage and Auto-enrollment

Note that Obamacare applications contain a section titled Renewal of Coverage in Future Years. An applicant can agree to allow an exchange to use income data, including information from tax returns to automatically renew eligibility for 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 years, or applicants can check “Do not use information from tax returns to renew my coverage.” Exchanges have access to the federal data hub which keeps track of your income and other personal data. If you gave unfettered access to your data by choosing auto-renewal, they have all the information needed to determine whether you are still eligible for your subsidized policy or should be moved into Medicaid.

The letter sent to CMS in June 2013 also asked about estate recovery disclosure in cases where coverage is auto-renewed during the annual redetermination process, when people are shifted from a subsidized plan to Medicaid due to a decrease in income or other change in circumstance, and when people are auto-enrolled on the presumption that they are eligible according to a database such as SNAP (food stamps) or by a hospital or health care center. A similar letter was sent to the Massachusetts Office of Medicaid.

The federal procedural rules on estate recovery say the state should notify Medicaid recipients about the estate recovery program during the annual redetermination process, but according to the Massachusetts Office of Medicaid, you don’t need to be informed about estate recovery during the redetermination process because you presumably read about this on the original application you filled out and submitted.

If you submitted an application that did not disclose estate recovery, it cannot be presumed that you are aware of estate recovery, because notification was not on the application. Thus, the redetermination procedure is one more example of the failure to disclose.

If you are bumped into Medicaid from a subsidized plan due to a change in your circumstances, the Massachusetts Office of Medicaid believes that you don’t need to be informed about estate recovery because you presumably read about this however many years ago when you filled out the original application. You will simply be sent a notice that you are now in Medicaid, and the notice will refer you to the Medicaid Member Booklet for information on the rules. If you obtain and read the booklet, you can learn that you may be subject to estate recovery. But don’t expect to receive a Medicaid Member Booklet with your notice, because “It would be cost prohibitive to include a Member Booklet with every notice. Instead, every notice includes information on how to contact Customer Service with any questions, including to request a copy of the Member Booklet.”

Hope you know what questions to ask and that you do request a copy of the booklet immediately, pray that it arrives before you use any Medicaid services if you are age 55 to 64 and go over it with a fine tooth comb. If you don’t want to be in Medicaid, you can contact your state Medicaid agency to unenroll, but you’ll probably have to pay a penalty for being uninsured unless you can earn more money and get into a subsidized plan.

If you submitted an application that does not disclose estate recovery and you are bumped into Medicaid due to a change in your circumstances, you won’t know about this detrimental practice, but you can learn that your assets may be confiscated if you contact Customer Service and request a Member Booklet.

If you are auto-enrolled into Medicaid because you were presumed eligible through a SNAP (food stamp) database or by a hospital or health care center, you may still need to fill out a full application which may or may not disclose estate recovery.

Now let’s look at how the federal exchange at healthcare.gov will handle these situations.

The federal exchange will not be renewing coverage for Medicaid recipients. Your state Medicaid agency will handle your annual Medicaid eligibility redetermination (renewal). CMS responded to the citizen’s inquiry as follows: “State Medicaid agencies are developing their own renewal forms which may include a notice regarding estate recovery. CMS is in the process of finalizing a model renewal form to assist states, and we appreciate that you highlighted this requirement.”

Why did CMS need to be reminded about notification of estate recovery when the federal procedural rules that CMS is supposed to implement specify that notification is required?

You may receive a renewal form if your state Medicaid agency doesn’t employ the same “streamlined Obamacare procedures” that Massachusetts is using or if you did not choose auto-renewal. Your state Medicaid agency might come up with its own procedure for redetermination regardless of which option you checked on your original application. In any case, the renewal form might not include disclosure of estate recovery although your state Medicaid agency is familiar with the estate recovery notification requirement outlined in the federal procedural rules.

According to CMS, if you are bumped into Medicaid due to a change in your circumstances, your state Medicaid agency may notify you that you are now in Medicaid and “may include Medicaid-specific information as appropriate.”

If the state Medicaid agency sends a notice that you have been bumped into Medicaid, you might also receive Medicaid-specific information–or you might not. The notice will refer you to a pamphlet and provide you with a website address so you can learn that your heirs can be dispossessed in exchange for your being provided with minimal medical care.

If you are auto-enrolled because you were presumed eligible through a SNAP (food stamp) database or by a hospital or health care center, your state Medicaid agency will most likely send you a full application which might or might not disclose estate recovery.

Oregon fast-tracked residents into Medicaid in October 2013 by sending approximately 240,000 letters to those on food stamps. The Oregon Health Authority already had people’s information on file since they were participants in an income-based state program, and, thus, presumed eligible for Medicaid. The letter explained that all they had to do was let the Oregon Health Authority know they wanted to be enrolled in Medicaid by checking the “I-am-interested” box, provide some basic information on the enclosed one-page form and return it to the Authority in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope. The Oregon Health Authority then worked on enrolling the 75,000 respondents and proceeded to send 177,000 reminder notices.
http://stateofreform.com/issues/medicaid/2013/12/secret-oregons-fast-track-enrollment-leveraging-bureaucracy/

Did the one-page form contain notification of all rights and responsibilities including estate recovery?

State Policy Changes

Oregon and Washington disclosed estate recovery on their applications and experienced low sign-ups. People are reluctant to accept having their families dispossessed of what little they have. Officials in both states said that state policy would be changed in order to apply estate recovery only to Medicaid patients in long-term care, and Cover Oregon (the state exchange) decided to remove estate recovery disclosure from its application in order to avoid alarming applicants. The Seattle Times reported that Washington’s Health Care Authority has filed an emergency rule to amend Medicaid’s estate recovery policy.
http://www.oregon.gov/oha/healthplan/OHPSuppDocs/Estate%20Recovery%20and%20the%20Oregon%20Health%20Plan.pdf
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/healthcarecheckup/topic/estate-recovery/

Privacy Violations

There is no pretending that your information is private or that Obamacare is concerned with protecting your privacy. California’s state exchange, Covered California, provided insurance agents with names and contact information for tens of thousands of people who either logged onto Covered California’s website to check out plans or who had partially filled out an application but did not finish, and did not ask to be contacted. Exectutive Director, Peter Lee, excused this breach of privacy on the grounds that the exchange’s legal counsel approved it and the state wanted to offer more assistance to Californians.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/06/business/la-fi-exchange-names-disclosed-20131207

The privacy statement in the application of Colorado’s exchange, Connect for Health Colorado, states: “You release Connect for Health Colorado and the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing from all liability for sharing this information with other agencies.” Some of the sharing agencies include the United States Customs and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security and financial institutions (banks, savings and loans, credit unions, etc.).

In the event that your data has been compromised, states must notify you, but the federal government is not required to do the same, and is, therefore, more likely to hide its security flaws and privacy breaches. According to the Washington Post, administration officials knew when the federal site was launched that the privacy of user data would be at risk. An internal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo warned that sufficient testing of data security had not been performed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kathleen-sebelius-acknowledges-frustrating-problems-with-health-care-website/2013/10/30/8cf36c98-415e-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/05/feds-not-required-to-report-security-breaches-obamacare-exchange-website/
http://freebeacon.com/expert-healthcare-gov-security-risks-even-worse-after-fix/

Subsidized Premiums And Cost-sharing Reductions Are Also Subject To Recovery

CMS and many of the state-based exchanges also left out notification that the tax credit you receive for a subsidized plan and the reduction in cost-sharing and deductibles are advance loans and could leave you with an unexpected debt to the IRS. Most likely, the lack of this disclosure as well as estate recovery was intentional so people would not be deterred from signing up for health insurance. Thus, CMS and other exchanges unilaterally surrendered your right to know important rules that can adversely impact you and your family. Non-disclosure of all rules, rights and responsibilities is not a standard and acceptable business practice and could be deemed fraudulent in a court of law.

Connect for Health Colorado states your acceptance in the fine print on its application: “I understand that if I am eligible for the Advance Premium Tax Credit (APTC) and/or Reduced Co-pays and Deductibles these payments will be made directly to my selected insurance carrier(s). Acceptance of (APTC) and/or Reduced Co-pays and Deductibles may impact my coverage year tax liability. I will be given the option to apply all, some, or none of any APTC amount I may be eligible for to my monthly premium.”

Do you know what this means? It is notification that you may have to pay back part or all of your Obamacare health premium subsidy and reduced co-pays and deductibles if your income rises during the year.

The Advance Premium Tax Credit is the subsidized part of your Obamacare premium. The subsidy and cost-sharing reductions are based on an estimate of your total income for the year in which you apply for insurance at an exchange. If your income at the end of the year is higher than the estimate, you may have a tax liability for part or all of these two items because they were based on a lower income. To avoid this risk, you can choose to negotiate a smaller subsidy and pay more of your premium to reduce your exposure to possible tax liability for overpayment of the subsidy. Alternatively, you can refuse the tax credit, pay full freight and collect your tax credit based on your actual year-end income when you file your federal tax return. You can’t negotiate cost-sharing reductions, but, you can opt not to apply for these unless you don’t mind shouldering a possible payback.
For details see section 4:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/02/03/obamacare-a-primer/
For current payback amounts:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ9/html/PLAW-112publ9.htm
For payback of the entire subsidy:
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/144847-1099-repeal-gets-trickier-with-house-bill

Medicaid Managed Care Plans

Some states use private insurers to manage health care for their Medicaid population through Medicaid Managed Care Plans, and the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid is a huge money-maker for these private insurers as well as a huge cost booster for U.S. health care. For giants UnitedHealthcare and WellPoint, as well as for smaller publicly-traded companies such as Molina Healthcare, a Fortune 500, multi-state health care organization, an expanded customer base brings revenue growth. Medicaid Managed Care Plans are hoping to enroll the majority of the expanded Medicaid population.

“This is several hundreds of billions of dollars of new market opportunity for these plans over the next couple of years,” says Jason Gurda, managing director of healthcare with investment bank Leerink Swann in New York.”
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/MONEY/usaedition/2013-03-08-Text-03062013-0212-PM_ST_U.htm

Many states are choosing to move all or portions of their Medicaid populations to managed care plans. Thirty-five are expected to make changes to their managed care programs in 2014, up from 28 in 2013 and 20 in 2012. States jumping on the privatized-Medicaid bandwagon will mean more profit for corporations and less money allocated to patient care.
http://www.hms.com/popularity-medicaid-managed-care-expected-grow/

A Managed Care Plan is a system of health insurance which includes a network of contracted providers that are paid a fixed amount to provide health benefits to a defined population. Needless to say, this model relies on restriction and denial of care putting Medicaid patients at risk.

A Medicaid Managed Care Plan adds more charges subject to estate recovery for those who are tossed into Medicaid. The Medicaid Manual says that when an individual age 55 and older is enrolled either voluntarily or mandatorily in a managed care plan, the state must seek recovery from the individual’s estate for the premium payments. If the state plan recovers for all Medicaid services, the state must recover from the individual’s estate the total capitation rate for the period the beneficiary was enrolled in the managed care plan. If the state plan recovers for only some services covered under the state plan, the state must recover from the individual’s estate that portion of the capitation payment that is attributable to the recoverable services, based on the most appropriate actuarial analysis determined by the state.

The manual also states that when the individual enrolls or is enrolled in the managed care plan, the state must provide a separate notice to the individual that explains that the premium payments made to the managed care plan are included either in whole or in part in the claim against the estate.

States that use private insurers to manage their Medicaid population will most likely have capitation payments but might not have reinsurance or fee-for-service programs which can also be recovered from an estate. Therefore, it is prudent to find out what your state has and who is affected. Here are the fees that can be recovered from estates:

Capitation Payments–a fixed monthly fee paid by the state to the Medicaid Managed Care Plan for each month you are enrolled in one of these plans, regardless of whether or not you use any medical services. If you do seek care, capitation payments can exceed the actual costs of services provided during the month.

According to the Massachusetts EOHHS Privacy Office: The estimated average capitation payment for October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 was $449.59 per month– an average annual total of $5,395.08. In other words, a person from age 55 through, let’s say, 62, accumulates $43,160.64 on his or her tally against assets including the home. There goes a chunk of your estate even if you didn’t use any medical care.

Reinsurance Payments–An amount reimbursed to program contractors for certain contract service costs incurred by a Medicaid patient that are beyond a contractual dollar threshold. These payments are in addition to the monthly capitation payment.

Fee-for-Service Payments–A direct payment of some or all of a Medicaid member’s medical bills not covered by other available insurance.

According to the Massachusetts Office of Medicaid, with certain exceptions, persons who are eligible for the Obamacare Medicaid expansion (age 21 to 64) must enroll in one of the state’s Medicaid Managed Care Plans.

The hard sell is on for states to privatize Medicaid, and many who are forced into Medicaid by Obamacare will also be forced into managed care plans as is the case in Massachusetts. This represents yet another noose around the necks of low-income and poor people since the three payments described above are recoverable from estates.

Once the limited estates of poor and low-income Americans have been taken to reimburse Medicaid, the U.S. will be left with a permanently poorer and more desperate population and will be faced with higher Medicaid costs as there will no longer be any private property to confiscate.

Pursuant to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) and clarified in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, states were given greater authority to impose and increase premium and cost-sharing charges on certain Medicaid enrollees, but despite these charges their estates are still subject to recovery. Under Obamacare, the government has a right to recover reimbursement from estates of those with lower incomes who are enrolled in Medicaid. Yet, individuals with higher incomes who qualify for a subsidized plan are also paying premiums subsidized by the government but are not subject to estate recovery.
http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/deficit-reduction-act-of-2005-implications-for/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/us/27medicaid.html?_r=0

Is it fair to impose estate recovery on Medicaid enrollees but not on other subsidy recipients? Is it fair if recovery adheres to the basic requirements in federal statute, but, thereafter, is based on state policy which differs from state to state and, thus, is not applied equally across the nation to all Medicaid enrollees at age 55 and up? Is targeting a specific age group fair? Or legal?

Equal protection is in the Constitution, but ever since the Supreme Court surrendered in the 1930s to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation, equal protection has been curtailed in the economic arena. The Supreme Court, unwilling to face down a President asserting previously unknown executive power, accepted the violation of the 14th Amendment in economic legislation in order to avoid being packed with FDR yes-men.

Obamacare was not written for the benefit of the poor and uninsured. It was written for the profits of the insurance companies giving them millions of new customers subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. The business of America is business. Private insurance company CEOs receive multi-million dollar pay packages, while under Obamacare low-income earners and the poor have to give up their homes and other assets in order to receive medical care.

Reprinted with permission from www.paulcraigroberts.org


 

About Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

 

 

Pill Nation: Are Americans Over-Medicated?

0

 

Pill Nation: Are Americans Over-Medicated?

 

Nearly 13 prescriptions were prescribed per man, woman, and child last year. We’re one of only two
countries in the world who allow direct-to-consumer Rx advertising; and Rx have slowly grown to be the third highest medical cost.
 
Welcome to the pill nation.

 

 
(H/T www.globalresearch.ca)
 

Go to Top