Get in Line and Wait Your Turn

Get in Line and Wait Your Turn

© David Burton 2014

Wait Time Wait Time

     ObamaCare (officially known as the the Affordable Care Act or ACA) has already started to adversely impact the lives of many Americans and this is particularly true of America’s senior citizens. Still more negative effects are coming. While some extremists have predicted the establishment of Death Panels to decide on how to ration medical services to the elderly, the more rational don’t anticipate such dire consequences. But, the full implementation of ObamaCare will certainly negatively impact the lives of America’s seniors. One of these consequences will be longer wait times to receive services. This impact is already beginning to be felt. And, for some seniors, extended wait times for services will ultimately mean prolonged suffering and even premature death. Unreasonably long wait times will render Death Panels unnecessary. If ObamaCare is fully implemented, the response to a call for medical services from a senior citizen in the coming years will be, ”Get in Line and wait your turn!”

     There are several reasons why this is so. These reasons are discussed below. The evidence in support of this conclusion is overwhelming and comes from historical, as well as current precedents. A discussion of this evidence is also presented below. Read what follows and then decide who and what you believe – President Obama and the proponents of ObamaCare or the facts and the conclusions presented by less biased individuals and organizations. In what do you put your faith - the promises made by President Obama and the proponents of ObamaCare or the facts that have emerged and the consequences that have resulted as ObamaCare has begun implementation?

     “Obamacare cuts $716 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and uses these ‘savings’ from Medicare to fund other entitlement expansions mandated by Obamacare. Medicare becomes a cash cow for Obamacare, and the Medicare ‘savings’ from payment cuts are not put back into making Medicare solvent. Such massive payment cuts do impact Medicare benefits, as well as seniors’ access to those benefits.
      - - -
     “The impact of these cuts will be detrimental to seniors’ access to care [Emphasis mine].The Medicare trustees 2012 report concludes that these lower Medicare payment rates will cause an estimated 15 percent of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies to operate at a loss by 2019, 25 percent to operate at a loss in 2030, and 40 percent by 2050. Operating at a loss means these facilities are likely to cut back their services to Medicare patients or close their doors, making it more difficult for seniors to access these services.” [Emphasis mine]. ( Ref. 1)

     The problems facing seniors with Obamacare have been apparent for a long time. “Seniors will benefit from the right kind of health care reform that protects and enhances the Medicare system they have paid into most of their lives, and expands options and encourages new doctors and nurses into the medical profession.
     Unfortunately {ObamaCare} is devastating to the health care of most seniors in our country, and is about as helpful as placing the steps to the Philadelphia Art Museum in front of their doctors' office.
     {ObamaCare adds} tens of millions of new people to a government health care plan, while cutting Medicare by over $500 billion. Meanwhile no new doctors will be added. It is clear that as government obligations grow and resources shrink, seniors will be most harmed.” [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 2)

     The recently revealed problems with the Veterans Administration (VA) medical services should be a wake-up call to everyone in this country facing the onset of ObamaCare.

     The inherent problems of ObamaCare, along with the misconceptions, the fallacies, and the outright lies are now coming to light.

     “If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it”NOT TRUE!
     THE TRUTH: Because of Obamacare, your old health care plan may not accept you; you may no longer be able to afford your old health plan; your old health care plan may no longer exist.

     “Your health care costs will be reduced”NOT TRUE!< .
     THE TRUTH: Because of Obamacare, many health care plan costs have already risen and will continue to rise as the true cost of ObamaCare becomes apparent.

     “If you like your current physician, you can you can stay with him” - NOT TRUE!.
     THE TRUTH: Because of Obamacare, your old physician may not want to continue servicing you, particularly if he is inadequately reimbursed by a government health care plan; you may not be able to afford your old physician; your old physician may have decided to retire rather than to continue in practice and to putting up with slow and low ObamaCare reimbursements and with massive ObmaCare red tape and reporting requirements.

     If the government can’t even put up a simple enrollment web site, how could they ever be expected to effectively manage a multi-billion dollar health care program that essentially impacts everyone living in this country?


     One of the major problems with ObamaCare is the fact that the program will create a massive shortage of physicians in the United States. Under ObamaCare, physicians face reduced reimbursements, a massive increase in paperwork and red tape, significant delays in receiving payments, and an increase in the number of patients they will be forced to service under the program. This is causing many physicians to, a) retire early, b) refuse to accept patients with government-reimbursement health care, and c) refusing to accept new patients. In addition, young people contemplating entering the medical profession are reassessing their career opportunities – Why spend eight years of your life to enter a profession with an accumulated debt approaching a half million dollars when you will have to put up with an increasing government bureaucracy, a mountain of paperwork, an ever-increasing work load and a constrained income with which to pay off expenses and accumulated debt?

     “Last week, politicians who helped craft the Affordable Care Act (ACA) celebrated in self-congratulatory style the third anniversary of that monstrosity which will soon extinguish health care as we’ve known it.
     “The president’s promises about the ACA saving money and allowing you to keep your existing health plan are proving false, as many predicted.
       - - -
     “The 2013 Deloitte Survey of U.S. Physicians, a survey of more than 600 physicians from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, found that ‘Six in 10 physicians (62 percent) said it is likely many of their colleagues will retire earlier than planned in the next one to three years.’
     “Based on the survey results, Deloitte found that most U.S. physicians believe that, among other worries, under Obamacare, ‘The future of the medical profession may be in jeopardy as it loses clinical autonomy and compensation’ and ‘Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements may be problematic, prompting many physicians to limit or close their practices to these enrollees.’” (Ref. 3)


     Our hospitals also face a number of problems under ObamaCare that are likely to, a) reduce the number of hospitals able to survive under the economic impact of ObamaCare, b) increase waiting times of surgical procedures, and c) increase the costs to patients. The later effect has already been seen. One provision of ObamaCare calls for fining hospitals that have a large number of readmissions. To avoid being fined, some hospitals are resorting to the practice of not formally “admitting” patients and, instead, calling their hospital stays “observations”. If the patient returns, the hospital does not have to report it as a readmission. Unfortunately, the poor patient is stuck with having to pay the bill, since his or her insurance may fully cover a hospital admission but not observations.

     While President Obama assured seniors he was cutting payments to hospitals and other providers but not the benefits they provided, he was obviously not telling the truth. “It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year. [Emphasis mine]
     “Under ObamaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.
     “Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results. [Emphasis mine]
      - - -
     “. . . the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals, . . . beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration {is rewarding} hospitals that spend the least per senior, and penalize{ing} those that spend more. . . . Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.
     “. . . The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.
     “. . . {It} is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.
     "Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. . . . ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. . . . 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.” (Ref. 4)

     “The decrease in payments to hospitals will create a low survival rate for seniors that need a hospital stay. Over the next few years seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions {will} have a greater chance at dying at a low spending hospital, where they would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution. . . .
     “{ObamaCare} is pressuring hospitals in all states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition, {ObamaCare rewards} hospitals that spend the least per senior and it penalizes those that spend more. {This} hurts the seniors who are in need of high quality medical care. In addition, private insurance companies that cover patients with Medicare Advantage programs are already dump{ing} doctors and patients because of Obamacare budget cuts.” (Ref. 5)


     The long-festering Veterans Administration (VA) scandal is now being revealed. One of the problems with the VA has historically been the unreasonably long wait times for services. As is now becoming apparent, the excessive wait times have been so long that veterans have had to suffer for weeks and months to receive treatment while some have died before they could receive treatment. ObamaCare promises to produce the same results – too many patients, not enough doctors, and not enough hospitals.

     ObamaCare will increasingly provide or oversee health care services to all Americans. “But what happens when the government is providing the good or service? The VA health system is the epitome of a government service. It is the liberals’ generation-long dream of a single-payer nationalized health care system. The government employs all the workers and pays all the bills. The veterans may think they are the customers, but they do not pay the bills. The people providing their health care know that they work for the government, not the veterans.
     “The true scandal is not that people within the VA created fake waiting lists to hide the real, months-long wait which caused some veterans to die. The true scandal is that such a system was created in the first place. This is how government-provided, nationalized health care works. It budgets money for a certain amount of service and then rations {Emphasis mine} that amount amongst its patients through a waiting system. Canada and Britain are both perfect examples of such health systems that apply to all citizens and the same sorts of tragic deaths occur in both countries thanks to the uncaring hand of government and the lack of a profit motive to encourage anybody to do better.
     “According to reports, the VA hospital in Albuquerque has eight cardiologists who between them see as many patients per week as a single private sector cardiologist would see in two days. The VA doctors get paid the same amount regardless of how many patients they see, so why should they work harder? Liberals may hate profits and the supposed greed it inspires, but profits would get those doctors working harder and could have saved the lives of sick veterans.
     “In the past few years, the VA has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on furniture instead of hiring more doctors because seeing more patients and delivering better patient care did not bring in more money. If anything, government agencies can best gain budget increases by having problems since politicians seem to think that problems can be solved by throwing more money at them. In reality, problems are solved by allowing markets to work and by getting the incentives right.
     Government agencies like the VA deliver bad service because they have no incentive to do any better. . . . {G}overnment employees see the politicians and others in charge of their budget as the customer, not the citizens who they are supposed to be serving.
     “As the VA scandal continues to develop people would be wise to remember that ObamaCare’s design was a compromise by the Democrats in hopes of attracting Republican support. Many Democrats wanted single-payer health care that would be one step away from the VA system (health care providers would still have been private).
     “The VA scandal may at least produce some good if it educates people about the dangers of relying on the government. If so, our veterans will once again have done their country a service at great personal sacrifice.” (Ref. 6)

     The problems now being uncovered in the VA system are the same problems that will come into existence with the implementation of ObamaCare – not immediately, but down the road. And, the primary victims of the ObamaCare problems will be the chronically ill, the critically ill and our senior citizens, those who will be unable to obtain services elsewhere.


     Here in Massachusetts, a trip to the local Registry of Motor Vehicles can give you some idea of what’s coming under ObamaCare if it is not quickly repealed. While most employees of the Registry are helpful and courteous and, once you reach them, your business can usually be transacted in a few minutes, the wait to get served can be excruciating. There can be fifty or more people waiting and at various times only a few people working to help them. In the commercial world, there would be more employees to serve the business’s customers. In the world of big government, it makes no difference - that is the problem. Big government continues on whether or not its customers - that’s you and I - receive prompt and efficient service.

     “In a for-profit business, serving customers are how one makes money and it is important to keep customers happy. Customers do not like waiting, so businesses work hard to avoid excessive waiting by the customers. They do this in order to make more profit. Government agencies do not have a profit motive. The workers and supervisors have no reason to care about their ‘customers’ except their own pride in doing a good job or perhaps hope of a promotion.
     “If you stop to think about the parts of the U.S. that are not working well, they are almost all things that the government provides, not the free market. Public education, public mass transit, government offices, and the example of the moment: the Department of Veterans Affairs.
     “What is the shared feature of government provision of goods and services that leads to problems? That’s easy; the customer does not pay or pays only indirectly through taxes that are not connected to their use of the service.
     “Free markets are excellent at providing people with what they want because it is automatic. People go to a store and make a purchase. If demand is strong enough to create a shortage, the manufacturer will produce more and the retailer will stock more because they can make more money by doing so.
     “The extra profits earned by those manufacturers and retailers will be noticed and will spur competitors to join the production and marketing of the demanded product. Consumers will get more of the products they like and businesses will make profits. It is a win-win. (Ref. 6)


     Many supporters of the Affordable Care Act point to foreign universal publicly funded health systems as models for the American system to follow. But, when one takes a deeper look into these government-run health care systems, one discovers that all is not roses. One such highly regarded health care program is that in place with our neighbor to the north, Canada.

     There are reportedly many positives with Canada’s system. But wait times are not among the positives. “Canadians wait longer in hospital emergency departments than people in other countries with publicly funded health-care systems, according to a new report.
     “The Wait Times Alliance’s annual report card, called ‘Time to close the gap,’ said 27 per cent of Canadians reported waiting more than four hours in the emergency department . . . “ (Ref. 7)

     Some more detailed information relative to wait times under Canada’s universal health care system is abstracted from Reference 8 and presented below.

  • 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.
  • 43% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 10% in the U.S.
  • 37% of Canadians say it is difficult to access care after hours (evenings, weekends or holidays) without going to the emergency department vs. 34% of Americans.
  • 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, vs. less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman.
  • 50% of Canadian administrators vs 0% of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery.
     In reference to the longer wait times in Canada than in the U.S., "the President and CEO of University Health Network, Toronto, reported that there is 'no question' that the lower cost has come at the cost of 'restriction of supply with sub-optimal access to services'" (Ref. 8)

     “Wait times in Canada’s health care system increased between 2012 and 2013, according to a new report from the Fraser Institute — and they are sky high in comparison to 1990s levels. The classical liberal policy institute, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, asserts that the increase is greatest for elective treatments. However, general levels for all practices are historically high, and physicians consider these times longer than what is clinically reasonable.” (Ref. 9)

     What many Americans fail to understand is that there's a big difference between universal health care coverage and actual access to medical care.

     “Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that ‘access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare.’
      - - -
     “As H. L. Mencken said: ‘For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.’ Universal healthcare is a textbook case.” (Ref. 10)

     What about that other great experiment in universal government-funded health care, Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), now in the middle of its 6th decade? “Emotionally feted by UK citizens and political leaders, the NHS is typically celebrated as a magnificent badge of honor and even as a symbol of national identity in Britain.
      - - -
     “Despite its much heralded presence in Britain’s health care, the problems of the NHS are severe, notorious, and increasingly scandalous in the most fundamental attributes of any health care system: access and quality.
     “Waits for care are shocking in the NHS . . . For instance, in 2010, about one-third of England’s NHS patients deemed ill enough by their GP waited more than one additional month for a specialist appointment. In 2008-2009, the average wait for CABG (coronary artery bypass) in the UK was 57 days. And the impact of this delayed access was obvious. For example, twice as many bypass procedures and four times as many angioplasties are performed in patients needing surgery for heart disease per capita in the U.S. as in the UK. Another study showed that more UK residents die (per capita) than Americans from heart attack despite the far higher burden of risk factors in Americans for these fatal events. In fact, the heart disease mortality rate in England was 36 percent higher than that in the U.S.
     “Access to medical care is so poor in the NHS that the government was compelled to issue England’s 2010 ‘NHS Constitution’ in which it was declared that no patient should wait beyond 18 weeks for treatment – four months – after GP referral. Defined as acceptable by bureaucrats who set them, such targets propagate the illusion of meeting quality standards despite seriously endangering their citizens, all of whom share an equally poor access to health care. Even given this extraordinarily long leash, the number of patients not being treated within that time soared by 43% to almost 30,000 last January. BBC subsequently discovered that many patients initially assessed as needing surgery were later re-categorized by the hospital so that they could be removed from waiting lists to distort the already unconscionable delays. . . .
      - - -
     “{Note that} the breast cancer mortality rate is 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom than in the U.S.; prostate cancer mortality rates are strikingly worse in the UK than in the U.S.; mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher than in the U.S.
      - - -
     “{Isn’t it} odd that people of means in Britain consistently look elsewhere for medical care{?} About six million Brits now buy private health insurance, including almost two-thirds of Brits earning more than $78,700. . . {T}he number of people paying for their own private care is up 20 percent year-to-year, with about 250,000 now choosing to pay for private treatment out-of-pocket each year. Isn’t it notable that more than 50,000 Britons travel out of the country per year and spend £161 million to receive medical care due to lack of access, even though they are hemorrhaging money for their national pride? When given the choice, Brits shun the NHS, and rightfully so.
     “Sadly, just as in America, many in the {government and} media attempt to spin the facts and control public opinion. . . .
      - - -
     “{T}he essence of medical care {should be} preventing, diagnosing, and treating disease for patients, not setting up a massive government bureaucracy. Even the Prime Minister’s 2010 white paper admitted that ‘the NHS is admired for the equity in access to healthcare it achieves’ but not for excellence – as if equally poor access is an achievement. Even though the UK’s mandatory retirement age at 65 was officially eliminated in 2011, perhaps the greatest gift of all to the Brits, and a true celebration of independence, would be to forcibly retire their falsely venerated NHS.” (Ref. 11)


     The start of ObamaCare has been a disaster. The on-line sign-up program was a massive failure and embarrassment. What about other aspects of ObamaCare?

     “Five hours, 26 minutes. That’s the average length of time, according to the California Healthcare Foundation, that emergency room patients in this state must wait before being admitted to a hospital as an inpatient.
     "One of the promised benefits of the Affordable Care Act was that it would reduce such agonizingly long emergency room waits by expanding the federal-state Medicaid program . . . and providing the low-income uninsured access to primary care.
     “But it hasn’t turned out that way. A recent survey by the American College of Emergency Physicians suggests that President Obama’s health care ‘reform’ actually has had a deleterious effect on the nation’s emergency rooms.
     “Indeed, nearly half of emergency physicians surveyed by ACEP reported a rise in ER visits since Jan. 1, when expanded Medicaid coverage under Obamacare took effect. More ER visits mean more crowded waiting rooms.
       - - -
     “{N}early nine of 10 surveyed emergency physicians expect emergency visits to further increase over the next three years. And more than three-quarters told ACEP that they fret their ERs are inadequately prepared for significant increases.
     “Many physicians do not accept Medicaid patients . . . because Medicaid pays so low. So, when people can’t get appointments with physicians, they will seek care in emergency departments.
     “States like California that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare saw the biggest increases in the volume of Medicaid emergency patients . . . . That’s the last thing California needed, with the lowest number of emergency rooms per capita of all the states. (Ref. 12)

     The adverse effects of ObamaCare on America’s seniors are becoming increasingly apparent and incontrovertible. Longer wait times for medical services are already occurring. Senior’s access to medical services is now declining

     “Obamacare ‘raided’ $300 billion for Medicare Advantage and seniors will begin feeling the cuts next year, according to an analysis Tuesday by the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee.
     “Obamacare took $700 billion from Medicare and $300 billion from Medicare Advantage alone for its own funding, according to the subcommittee. The cuts to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries will ‘begin to be fully realized in the next year,’ according to the subcommittee.” (Ref. 13)

     “Obamacare has a new message to seniors: Take two aspirins and find yourself a new doctor in the morning.
     “Just ask {an} 84-year-old {New Yorker} . ..
      - - -
     “{S}he had just received {a letter} from the Medicare Advantage program of UnitedHealthcare.
     “. . . one of close to 900,000 aged New Yorkers covered by Medicare Advantage, {she} was informed that {her primary care physician’s} contract was being terminated effective Jan. 1; she would need to find another doctor.
      - - -
     “. . . Due to reductions in funding under {ObamaCare}, the Medicare Advantage programs, in which Medicare provides money for private insurers to cover seniors, have quietly started to cancel the contracts of providers to save money.
     “Although there was much attention . . . to the fact that many health insurance plans purchased on the individual market will be cancelled under Obamacare, the havoc it is wrecking on Medicare Advantage patients and their providers has been barely noticed.
     “Yet this is exactly what critics of the program have warned, even as its slavish defenders vehemently denied any coming ill effects.
     “Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was pooh-poohed after he said this August that ‘the chances are that soon [seniors] will open up the mail to the bad news that your Medicare Advantage . . . has been changed in a negative way for you because of Obamacare.’
     “In order to fund other aspects of the program, Obamacare cuts $717 billion from Medicare over 10 years; $154 billion of that will come from Medicare Advantage.
     “{One analyst} warned his clients earlier this year that government payments to Medicare Advantage programs would decrease by 7% or 8% in 2014, proving ‘enormously disruptive to Medicare Advantage, likely forcing a number of smaller plans out of the business and creating disarray for many seniors.’ [Emphasis mine]
     “. . . his warning has come to fruition.
     “. . . UnitedHealthcare is canceling the contracts of 2,100 Medicare Advantage doctors, with nearly 8,000 patients, in the New York metropolitan area.
      - - -
     “Nationwide, UnitedHealthcare is canceling 10-15% of its contracts with Medicare Advantage providers.” (Ref. 14)

     Under Obamacare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes are being paid less money to take care of more seniors. Many of these facilities are already short staffed, and the cut of payments will inevitably increase the shortage of staffing. The cuts will compel hospitals, and nursing facilities to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

     As has been the case with the U.S. VA medical system, this shortage of health care providers will cause long waiting times for services and these long waiting times will contribute to patients enduring pain and suffering for extended periods of time and ultimately in unnecessary deaths as has come to light in the VA scandal. Simply, there will be too few doctors to meet the needs of sick Americans. And those that will suffer the most will be America’s senior citizens. If a senior citizen calls for a doctor, the response will likely be, ”Get in Line and wait your turn!”

     While seniors seeking medical services may be told to, “Get in line and wait your turn!”, the truth may well be that the wait time is infinite if there is no one willing or able to provide the needed services. Is this how ObamaCare informally legalizes euthanasia without having to establish Death Panels?
  1. How Does Obamacare Rob Medicare and Hurt Seniors?, Ask Heritage;, Accessed 11 June 2014.
  2. Will health care reform help or hurt senior citizens?, Jim Martin, Now on PBS;, Accessed 11 June 2014.
  3. Obamacare Forces Good Physicians to Quit, ObamaCare The Truth. The Lies;, Accessed 4 June 2014.
  4. ObamaCare's cuts to hospitals will cost seniors their lives, Betsy McCaughey, Fox News, 12 September 2012.
  5. Is Obamacare quietly killing seniors?, Sandra Larson,, 13 January 2014.
  6. VA Scandal Shows How Government Works, Jeffrey Dorfman, Forbes, 24 May 2014.
  7. Medical wait times up to 3 times longer in Canada, CBC NEWS | Health, 3 June 2014.
  8. Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States, Wikipedia;, Accessed 10 June 2014.
  9. Wait Times Keep on Extending for Canada’s Universal Health Care, Sofia Ramirez Fionda, PanAm Post, 5 November 2013.
  10. Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets , Michael Tanner and Michael Cannon, Los Angeles Times, 5 April 2007.
  11. Happy Birthday To Great Britain's Increasingly Scandalous National Health Service, Scott W. Atlas, M.D., Forbes, 5 July 2013.
  12. Obamacare boosts ER patients, wait times, Editorial, Orange County Register, 9 June 2014.
  13. House subcommittee: Obamacare’s $300 billion Medicare Advantage raid will hurt seniors next year, Patrick Howley, The Daily Caller, 4 December 2013.
  14. The seniors getting hurt by Obamacare, Evan Gahr, New York Daily News, 3 November 2013.


  16 June 2014 {Article 192; Govt_52}    
Go back to the top of the page