You are on page 1of 81

Association of American Physicians

and Surgeons, Inc.


A Voice for Private Physicians Since
1943
Omnia pro aegroto

1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9


Tucson, AZ 85716-3450
Phone: (800) 635-1196

ObamaCare Lawsuit - AAPS v


Sebelius
On March 26th, 2010 AAPS filed suit to invalidate the new
massive health care bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=OQcFk4ygC_A&feature=player_embedded

http://www.aapsonline.org/hhslawsuit/
The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons
("AAPS") fought Hillary Care in the early 1990's and
won!
On March 26th, 2010 AAPS filed suit to invalidate
the new massive health care bill, which passed the
House by only 4 votes on a party-line vote (with 34
Democrats voting against it). Forcing patients to
buy insurance that may not even cover the care
they need is wrong for patients, physicians, and
our nation, and is unconstitutional.
• Press Release of March, 29, 2010 - "Doctors
Sue to Overturn the Health Care Bill" READ
RELEASE
• Talking Points and information for medical
societies interested in signing on to suit -
03/29/2010 READ TALKING POINTS
• Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory
Relief filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia - 03/26/2010 READ COMPLAINT
below.

http://www.aapsonline.org/hhslawsuit/

===============================
Stop Obama Care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=8KwLWgYTe6w&feature=player_embedded

Watch AAPS President, Mark Kellen, MD,


speak at Doctors' Rally in Washington, DC
Are you FOR a government takeover of American
medicine, or FOR freedom?

Which would you choose?

Tea Party schedule: www.teapartypatriots.org


Listen to AAPS virtual tea party:
www.takebackmedicine.com

Watch AAPS congressional briefing

Legislative analysis:

• AAPS Analysis of Senator Baucus' "Call to


Action: Health Reform 2009"
• Kennedy releases draft “health care reform”
proposal - 6/10/09
• Baucus proposing Hillary-redux only worse;
Coburn and others propose Republican plan -
5/30/09
• "Get Off the Train" - AAPS News June 2009

Videos:

• Conservatives for Patient Rights


• On the Fence films
• AAPS Online YouTube Channel
• Health Care Rally in Sioux Falls, SD
• Interview with Rep. Tom Price, MD
• Rep. Tom Price, MD Tells Obama to Quit the
Health Care Blame Game

Tools for an independent practice:

• Whether to Opt Out of Medicare: How to Make a


Titanic Decision
• How to Start a Third Party Free Practice
• Watch and listen to presentations by Physicians
Practicing Third-Party and/or Medicare Free
• Opting Out of Medicare
Links:

• CURE
• Institute for Health Freedom
• Patients United Now
• Citizens' Council on Health Care
• www.freemarkethealthcare.com

AAPS policy

• White Paper on medical financing


• Principles of medical policy
• Oath of Hippocrates
• Why the United States Should Reject Socialized
Medicine (a.k.a. “Single Payer”) and Restore
Private Medicine

===============================
HEALTH CARE REFORM ACTION SITES
(7/1/09)

There are many more great sites, but these are some of
the new ones that have been created to motivate
grassroots activism.
PHYSICIAN PETITION: Take Back VIDEOS OF UK/CANADIAN PATIENTS &
Medicine www.TakeBackMedicine.com DOCTORS
(Association of American Physicians & www.FacesofGovernmentMedicine.com
Surgeons)
PETITION: Say No to Government-Run ACTION KIT: July Recess Town Meetings
Healthcare www.FreedomWorks.com
www.CpRights.org
(Conservatives for Patients Rights) 10 QUESTIONS To Ask the President on
Health Care
PETITION: Free Our Health Care Now http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov
www.FreeOurHealthCareNow.com/ (Republican Study Committee)
(National Center for Policy Analysis)
SOUND OFF – POST STORIES, VIDEO
PETITION: “Hands Off My Health Care” www.FixHealthCarePolicy.org
Both of these links will lead you to the same (Heritage Foundation)
web site.
www.PatientsFirstNow.com ANALYSIS
www.Joinpatientsfirst.com
(Americans for Prosperity) CATO: New healthcare section
http://healthcare.cato.org/
PETITION: Do No Harm!
www.DoNoHarmPetition.org SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF BILLS:
(Galen Institute) http://healthreform.kff.org/
(Kaiser Family Foundation)
CONGRESSIONAL PLEDGE: Read Bill
Before You Vote OTHER BILLS:
www.LetFreedomRingUSA.com
HR 2630
LETTER TO CONGRESS: State Legislators’ “Protect Patients” & Physicians’ Privacy” Act
Sign-On Prohibits insurance mandate
www.alec.org
(American Legislative Exchange Council)
HR 2629: “Coercion is Not Health Care” Act
Require patient consent for disclosure of
REGISTER TO OPT OUT OF OBAMACARE records, opt-out provisions from electronic
www.PatientOptOut.com medical records for patients & physicians.
(Social Security Institute)
OPPOSITION SITES:
PATIENTS UNITED NOW TOUR SCHEDULE:
www.patientsunitednow
• www.healthreform.gov (White House)
(Americans for Prosperity)
post stories
Tour calendar, post first-person stories
• http://my.barackobama.com
• http://www.HealthCare09.org (AFL-CIO)
HEALTH CARE TEA PARTIES 9/12 CAPITOL • www.HealthCareForAmericaNow.org
TEA PARTY (AFL-CIO)
www.TeaPartyPatriots.ning.com
• http://www.PNHP.org (Physicians for
National Health Program – single payer)

================================
The Physicians' Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of Human Events, it becomes necessary for


one Profession to dissolve the Financial Arrangements which have
connected them with Medicare, Medicaid, assorted Health
Maintenance Organizations, and diverse Third Party Payers and to
assume among the other Professions of the Earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of Mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that the Physician’s


primary responsibility is toward the Patient; that to assure the
sanctity of this relationship, payment for service should be decided
between Physician and Patient, and that, as in all transactions in a
free society, this payment be mutually agreeable. Only such a
Financial Arrangement will guarantee the highest level of
Commitment and Service of the Physician to the Patient, restrain
Outside Influence on Decision-Making, and assure that personal
information be kept confidential.

The Financial Arrangements between Physicians and the Third


Parties have become so destructive to the Patient-Physician
relationship, and to the Medical Profession as a whole, that it is the
Right, and Obligation, of the Members of the Profession to abolish
them. Prudence will dictate that arrangements long established
should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
accordingly all experience has shown, that Physicians are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right; it is
their Duty, to throw off such arrangements, and to provide new
Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of this Profession; and such is
now the necessity that constrains them to alter their former
Financial Arrangements. The history of the present system is a
history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct
effect the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the Medical
Profession. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

• The Tyranny began during the Second World War, when the
Government gave tax subsidies to Employers who offered
Health Insurance Benefits, thus penalizing and
disenfranchising individuals.
• The Government created and subsidized the Health
Maintenance Organization---Entities designed to ration
Health Care by Capitation; These incentives set Patient
against Physician, thus destroying this Sacred Trust.
• The Government, in 1965, in its Infinite Wisdom and going
far beyond its Powers as set out in the Constitution, decreed
that the Poor and The Elderly should receive Health Care
Benefits funded by the Taxpayer. Thus came into existence
Medicaid and Medicare, massive Entitlements that are
bankrupting the Federal and many State Governments.
• Alarmed by the rising Health Care Cost that it had
engendered, the Government set out to restrain fees to
Physicians. These Price Controls increased Health Care
Spending, as Volume of Services went up, and Quality went
down. No other Profession in the United States is denied the
ability to raise fees to cover increasing costs of doing
Business.
• The Goverment enacted HIPAA, forcing the spending of
billions to comply, and with no positive impact on Patient
Care.
• The Government passed Sustainable Growth Rate formula
which lowers Medicare Physician Payment when total
spending and volume increase, virtually assuring a downward
spiral in Payments.
• The Government and HMOs now limit fees to Physicians by
"Payment for Performance," based on "Practice Guidelines."
Beyond insulting our Ethic, this destroys our Professional
Autonomy.
• Congress and the President are now conspiring to to
completely take over all aspects of the Health Care System,
with all patient encounters feeding into a National Database.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for


Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have
been answered only by repeated injury. A System whose character
is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to
be the ruler of a Free Profession.

We, therefore, the undersigned Physicians of the United States of


America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the
rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name of our Patients
solemnly publish and declare, that we will withdraw our
participation in all above-described Third Party Payment Systems.
Henceforth and Forever, we shall agree to provide our services
directly to our Patients, and be compensated directly by them, in
accordance with the ancient customs of our Profession. The
Patients’ medical interactions with us will remain confidential. We
pledge the highest level of Service and Dedication to their Well-
Being.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other
our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Richard Amerling, MD; New York, NY

December, 2009

===============================

About Us / Contact Us
Click Here for Membership Information

Mailing Address:
AAPS
1601 N. Tucson Blvd. #9
Tucson, AZ 85716

Phone:
1-800-635-1196

Fax:
1-520-325-4230 or
1-520-326-3529

Email:
aaps@aapsonline.org

Board of Directors

Media Contact:
Kathryn Serkes
(202) 333-3855
kaserkes@worldnet.att.net

Other information about AAPS:

o Oath of Hippocrates
o Principles of Medical Ethics
o AAPS Limited Legal Consultation Service
o Resolutions Passed at our Annual Meetings
===============================

AAPS State Chapters

• California State Chapter


• Pennsylvania State Chapter

===============================

http://www.takebackmedicine.com/

America's Physicians Urged to


DECLARE INDEPENDENCE
from government; other third parties
A Plea from America's Physicians
To Kill the Healthcare Bill...
Before it Kills Medicine in America
Lessons from the Health Care Summit
In case you missed the media extravaganza from Blair
House on Feb 25, John Goodman sums up the most
important lesson: “Under no circumstances do you want to
give any of these guys power over your health care.” READ
MORE
Lessons from the Healthcare Summit
Friday, February 26, 2010 at 4:29PM
In case you missed the media extravaganza from Blair House on Feb 25, John Goodman
sums up the most important lesson: “Under no circumstances do you want to give any of
these guys power over your health care.”

Obama himself spoke for 119 minutes, longer than the 110 minutes used by Republicans
from whose ideas he purportedly wanted to learn. (Other Democrats spoke for 114
minutes.) But as Obama said, he can go overtime: “I’m the President.”

Out of the 40,000 letters the president receives everyday, “I get 10 letters…for me to take
upstairs to the residence and read every single night,” Obama said. Sometimes five of the
letters will be about healthcare.

In addition to the platitudes, sad stories, and “I” statements, Obama’s opening remarks
contained a key truth: “Almost all of the long-term deficit and debt that we face relates to
the exploding costs of Medicare and Medicaid. Almost all of it. That is the single biggest
driver of our federal deficit. And if we don’t get control over that we can’t get control
over our federal budget.”

So the Plan dumps 15 to 18 million more people into Medicaid, and extends the
“Cornhusker Kickback” to all the states. The vote of Sen. Ben Nelson was reportedly
bought by exempting Nebraska from the state share of increased Medicaid costs in
perpetuity.

While Sen. Lamar Alexander stated that 50% of physicians refuse to see new Medicaid
patients because of low fees, one survey showed the rate is only 28%.

The Plan still promises to cut half a trillion dollars out of Medicare over 10 years, despite
filling in the “doughnut hole” in prescription drug benefits.

Two-thirds of hospitals already lose money on Medicare patients, and virtually all lose on
Medicaid, writes Len Nichols, Ph.D., in the Feb 24 New England Journal of Medicine.
Still, we should “be not afraid.” Although without comprehensive reform, we will face
draconian price controls, benefit cuts, and ruinous interest rates within a decade, reform
will fix the problem, despite expanded coverage.

“Only government can rewrite the rules of private insurance markets” or “lead locally
dominant providers through payment reform.” The answer, Nichols believes, is
comparative performance databases and reformed incentives.

State reform can only go so far, since insurers can leave the state. Also, thousands of
smaller firms as well as big companies now self insure under ERISA to avoid state
insurance mandates and premium tax payments. “Affordable health care is a national
problem that demands a national solution,” writes Sara Rosenbaum, J.D., in the Feb 24
New England Journal of Medicine.
So what would be the effect of proposed federal insurance rules? Obama said premiums
would go down; Alexander said they would go up. The CBO weighed in with a 28-page
analysis. The answer seems to be: “It depends.” Large group plans, small group plans,
nongroup plans? Income level (i.e. subsidy level)? “Bare-bones plan” (probably to be
outlawed), “Cadillac plan (prepare to be taxed), or just-right plan?

One of the unbridgeable gaps appears to be abortion funding. Nancy Pelosi claims the
new Plan doesn’t cover abortion, but Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and others claim that it
does. Layers of accounting gimmicks mean that everyone will be paying a monthly
abortion premium.

Before the reconciliation process can be use to bypass a filibuster, the House has to pass a
bill acceptable to the Senate. Abortion coverage may be the factor that defeats that
maneuver. The key vote may then be not Scott Brown’s but Democrats who supported
the Stupak Amendment in the House.

Goodman concludes that none of the speakers at the summit have any idea how to control
costs, improve quality, or ensure acceess to care. The Republicans’ blank sheet of paper
idea is the best one we have heard.

NATIONWIDE VIRTUAL VIGIL


CLICK HERE TO
LISTEN TO VIGIL
ARCHIVED SHOWS NOW AVAILABLE
They took the vote in the dead of night but we were watching!

SUNDAY PRESS CONFERENCE WITH PHYSICIANS OPPOSED


TO SENATE BILL - CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Will the SENATE SCROOGES ruin Christmas?

DOCTORS TO REID: bill subsidizes very corporations criticized by all


sides; Ask Reid to withdraw bill & start over. CLICK HERE TO
READ LETTER
TEXT OF LETTER BELOW

December 18, 2009

Honorable Harry Reid

Majority Leader
United States Senate

Dear Senator Reid:

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which speaks for thousands of
physicians in all specialties nationwide, and millions of their patients, urges you to
withdraw the current Senate “health-care reform” proposal—simply because it is the only
right thing to do.

The heart of this proposal is compulsory insurance: it forces Americans to buy a product
they would otherwise reject, thereby subsidizing the very corporations that are being
justly criticized from both the left and the right. This should be unacceptable to all,
including both single-payer and free-market advocates.

The bill increases costs and decreases choices—the opposite of the stated goals—and is
thus a fraud perpetrated on the American people.

There is no way that 2,000 pages replete with bureaucratic requirements and restrictions
—and political payoffs—can be fixed. The Senate needs to start over with thoughtful,
one-at-a-time, transparent measures. The current proposal is like giving a patient an
injection of 2,000 ingredients—some untested either alone or in combination, some
known to have serious adverse effects, and some to be concocted later by an
administrative agency. It is bad medicine, and bad public policy.

The majority of Americans are opposed to this proposal. The more they learn about it,
the more they oppose it. The content of the bill is largely not known even by Senators
who are being pressured to vote for it. But in a sense, the details don’t even matter.

We are confounded by your willingness to neuter the U.S. Senate with this bill,
abdicating your power and turning so much control over to the Secretary of HHS and
other unelected officials.

Some senators fear losing their job if they vote “yes,” some if they vote “no.” Should that
be the sole basis for voting? Don’t put them in that dilemma. Think of the future of the
U.S. Senate itself as a deliberative, representative body, with meaningful authority.

Give your constituents and your country a real Christmas gift. Preserve our American
heritage. Withdraw this bill.

George Watson, D.O., President, and Jane Orient, M.D., Executive Director, AAPS

CC U.S. Senate
WRITE THE SENATE A LETTER AND READ WHAT
OTHERS HAVE WRITTEN - CLICK HERE

LISTEN TO WEBCAST FROM DECEMBER 16


& SEE PHOTOS FROM CANDLELIGHT VIGILS CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
AND LISTEN

TELL THE AMA TO "SUPPORT PATIENTS NOT


PELOSI"! CLICK HERE to read more, see photos, and watch video of
AMA "Shout Out"

Doctors Blast the AMA for Pelosi Care Endorsement


Monday, November 9, 2009 at 12:04AM
UPDATE - 11/8/2009 (SEE VIDEO & PHOTOS FROM SHOUT-OUT BELOW)

PROTESTERS TELL AMA TO SUPPORT "PATIENTS NOT PELOSI !"

In downtown Houston on 11/7/2009, outside the AMA meeting, about 150 people
chanted, yelled, and talked for almost 2 hours and 3 television stations came out to report
on the event. David McKalip, M.D. took a break from the AMA meeting and spoke to
the assembled crowd. The AMA staff was on lookout through park for the hour or so
beforehand checking out what we were up to.

The one casualty of the rally was our Take Back Medicine sign, which mysteriously
disappeared from the tree it was attached to.
Stay tuned...

Hear the crowd shout "Kill the Bill" to the AMA Delgates inside the convention center
across the street. http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=TzCAOb75ZxE&feature=player_embedded

VIEW PHOTOS FROM "SHOUT-OUT"

-----------------------------------------
Report from AAPS Director of Policy and Public Affairs, Kathryn Serkes, on the ground
in Houston at the AMA meeting:

The AMA has security posted at entrances to Convention Center, so public will NOT be
allowed access to the facility.

Our "shout out" at the AMA meeting here in Houston is set for later this afternoon.
AMA could vote on emergency resolution to rescind the support of HR 3962. The
resolution may be considered later today!

November 7
For immediate release:
AMA Has Chance to Rescind Support of HR 3962;
AMA Shout -out from public urges doctors to answer to PATIENTS not
AMA leadership

HOUSTON, TX -- Members of the AMA are trying a last-minute tactic to


introduce an emergency resolution rescinding the AMA's support of HR
3962.
"We want to remind physicians that they are
responsible to their PATIENTS, not the
leadership of the AMA," said Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy for
the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and Take Back Medicine, a
coalition of other medical groups.
"If the AMA leadership ignores the public -- their patients--it will set us back to the old
days 'Doctor knows best' when patients were supposed to keep their mouths shut and do
what the doctor ordered."
This week, Take Back Medicine called for a public “Shout Out” at the AMA meeting,
with doctors and patients to arrive with the Tea Party Express bus in a caravan following
their rally at the Sam Houston Race Park in Houston.

Nov 7, Approximately 1:30pm - 2pm


Tea Party Express Bus leaves Sam Houston Race Park leading caravan to
George R. Brown Convention Center, downtown Houston

Will hold public “Shout-out” at AMA Houston meeting on Saturday,


including Tea Party protestors
Houston, TX – The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
(AAPS) blasted the AMA for again publicly endorsing the massive
Democrat healthcare reform bill in Congress.

“The AMA has sold out patients, and sold out the
profession of medicine for a few dollars of
Medicare money,” said Ms. Serkes. “In July they
endorsed HR 3200 and took a lot of heat and lost
members in droves. “With the endorsement of
HR 3962, it’s now painfully clear the AMA does
not represent it membership.”
A large public demonstration has been organized by physician coalition “Take Back
Medicine” on Saturday in Houston. After speaking at the Tea Party Express at the Sam
Houston Raceway, AAPS Director Juliette Madrigal-Dersch, M.D. of Marble Falls, TX,
and Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, will ride the Tea Party
Express bus, leading a caravan grassroots activists to join protesting doctors at the AMA
meeting (Brown Convention Center - Downtown Houston).

“They have one last chance to rescind this endorsement,” said Serkes. “If they don’t, the
damage with the medical community will never be healed.”

TAKE ACTION:

++CALL THE AMA OFFICE OR


++YOUR STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
(CLICK HERE FOR LIST)
++AND LEAVE MESSAGE:
"Doctors -- please support PATIENTS, not AMA
leadership. NO on HR 3962."

AMA main office in Chicago: (800) 621-8335 and


service.followup@ama-assn.org

Additional AMA contact information, including


email addresses, can be found here:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?
view=322
------------------------------------------------

Read the AMA letter of support to Nancy Pelosi - CLICK HERE

Read the AMA Press Release of November 5 - CLICK HERE

LISTEN LIVE WED. 8PM TO 9PM EST - CLICK HERE

PHYSICIANS: Make your voices heard!

Physicians have stood on sidelines too long as you have watched


your control over the practice of medicine taken over by
politicians, insurance companies and regulators – people who
have never laid a hand on a sick patient, explained to a sobbing
child why she needs a “shot,” or made split-second life-or-
death decisions.

They’ve never know what it’s like to have a make a decision


whether to “break the rules” or do what’s best for your patient in
spite of the rules.
For too long, doctors have been carrying the burden of a scheme
that increasingly leaves you out of the decision-making process,
and tells you that your first responsibility is to the government or
insurance company, rather than your real clients, your patients.

The country is looking for physicians to take the lead in the current
debate on health care reform. It’s become clear that big organized
medicine -- like the American Medical Association (AMA) -- isn’t
truly representing you and your patients.

===============================

Association of American Physicians


and Surgeons, Inc.
A Voice for Private Physicians Since
1943
Omnia pro aegroto

1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9


Tucson, AZ 85716-3450
Phone: (800) 635-1196
ObamaCare Lawsuit - AAPS v
Sebelius
On March 26th, 2010 AAPS filed suit to invalidate the new
massive health care bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=OQcFk4ygC_A&feature=player_embedded

===============================

AAPS LAWSUIT
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS, INC.,
1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Suite 9,
Tucson, AZ 85716,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATHLEEN G. SEBELIUS,
SECRETARY OF HEALTH &
HUMAN SERVICES,
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201,
in her official capacity,
and,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235,
in his official capacity,
Defendants.
)))))))))))))))))))))))
No. 1:10-cv-00499-RMC
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff Association of American Physicians and
Surgeons, Inc. (“AAPS”) seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief based on the
following allegations.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. AAPS brings this action under the Medicare
Act (“Medicare”), the Social
Security Act (“Social Security”), the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), various
restrictions
on federal action in Article I of the U.S.
Constitution, and the Fifth and Tenth
Amendments to
enjoin Defendants Sebelius and Astrue
(collectively, “Defendants”) from compelling
AAPS
members to participate in Medicare Part A as a
condition of receiving Social Security benefits
and to purchase health insurance approved by
Defendant Sebelius.
2
2. As set forth more fully in Paragraph 73, AAPS
seeks the following injunctive and
declaratory relief:
(a) Vacate the Social Security Program
Operations Manual System (“POMS”)
on (a) Waiver of Hospital Insurance Entitlement
by Monthly Beneficiary, POMS HI
00801.002, (b) Withdrawal Considerations,
POMS HI 00801.034, and (c) Withdrawal
Considerations When Hospital Insurance is
Involved, POMS GN 00206.020, (i) as
promulgated without the required notice-and-
comment rulemaking, and (ii) for
mandating (without authority) that AAPS
members and their patients participate in
Medicare Part A as a condition to receiving
Social Security benefits;
(b) Enjoin the re-promulgation of regulations
similar to POMS HI 00801.002,
POMS HI 00801.034, and POMS GN 00206.020
as ultra vires;
(c) Vacate the mandate in the newly enacted
Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) that individuals
and businesses with 50 or more
employees purchase health insurance or pay
compensating penalties as outside the
authority of Congress to enact and the federal
government to enforce;
(d) Enjoin the promulgation and enforcement of
federal standards for health
insurance as outside the authority of Congress
to enact and the federal government to
enforce;
(e) Declare PPACA unenforceable in its entirety
because it lacks a
severability clause and cannot be funded
without the insurance mandates on individuals
and businesses of 50 or more employees; and
(f) Order Defendants Sebelius and Astrue to
submit an accounting on the
solvency of Medicare and Social Security,
respectively, to this Court.
3
The requested relief is necessary to preserve
individual liberty and choice under Social
Security,
as well as to prevent the PPACA from
bankrupting the United States generally and
Medicare and
Social Security specifically and from
unconstitutionally denying individual (and
state) liberty
from ultra vires federal dictates.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff AAPS is a not-for-profit membership
organization incorporated under
the laws of Indiana and headquartered in
Tucson, Arizona. AAPS’ members include
thousands
of physicians nationwide in all practices and
specialties, many in small practices. AAPS was
founded in 1943 to preserve the practice of
private medicine, ethical medicine, and the
patientphysician
relationship. As set forth more fully in
Paragraphs 9-20, AAPS members include
without limitation medical caregivers – who
also are consumers of medical care – as well as
medical employers and owners and managers
of medical businesses. AAPS members practice
or
reside in most (if not all) states in the Union.
4. Defendant Sebelius is the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, the head of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (“HHS”), an executive department of
the
United States government.
5. Defendant Astrue is the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration
(“SSA”), an independent agency within the
executive branch of the United States
government.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This action arises out of Defendants’
ongoing violations of Medicare, Social
Security, the APA, various clauses in Article I of
the U.S. Constitution, and the Fifth and Tenth
Amendments. As such, this action raises
federal questions over which this Court has
jurisdiction
pursuant to: 28 U.S.C. §1331; the Acts of March
3, 1863, 12 Stat. 762, and June 25, 1936, 49
4
Stat. 1921 (as amended); D.C. Code §11-501;
and this Court’s equity jurisdiction.
7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(e), venue is
proper in the District of Columbia.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §703, venue is proper in
any court of competent jurisdiction.
8. An actual and justiciable controversy exists
between AAPS and Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S STANDING
9. AAPS members include without limitation
retired physicians and other retired
medical caregivers on Social Security,
practicing physicians and other medical
caregivers, and
physicians and others who own or manage
medical businesses. All individual AAPS
members
are consumers of medical services in addition
to their various capacities as medical
caregivers.
10. To the extent that they relate to third
parties (as distinct from AAPS and AAPS
members), the allegations of injury
(Paragraphs 11-20) are made on the basis of
information and
belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, which
likely could be proved conclusively after a
reasonable opportunity for discovery.
Ongoing Injuries from Compelled
Participation in Medicare Part A
11. Some AAPS members who are retired and
receive Social Security would like to
cease participating in Medicare Part A, but
POMS HI 00801.002, POMS HI 00801.034,
POMS
GN 00206.020 prevent their doing so without
losing eligibility for Social Security. These AAPS
members do not wish to lose eligibility for
Social Security.
12. AAPS members who are practicing
physicians and other medical caregivers who
have opted out of Medicare would like to
compete with medical caregivers within
Medicare in
serving retired Americans, but the retired
patients have greater difficulty retaining such
AAPS
members because POMS HI 00801.002, POMS
HI 00801.034, POMS GN 00206.020 compel
their participation in Medicare Part A. As such,
POMS HI 00801.002, POMS HI 00801.034, and
5
POMS GN 00206.020 give an advantage to
these competitors vis-à-vis AAPS members who
have opted out of Medicare.
13. Many patients prefer to avoid Medicare Part
A specifically and Medicare
generally because the quality of care and
treatment is better outside of these Medicare
programs.
Similarly, many physicians prefer to operate
outside Medicare Part A specifically and
Medicare
generally to avoid federal restrictions on the
practice of medicine.
Ongoing Injuries from Health Insurance
Legislation
14. AAPS members include the owners of
businesses with more than 50 employees,
who are subject to a new PPACA requirement
to purchase health insurance for employees or
else
pay a penalty, and the imposition of this pair of
requirements reduces the present value of
such
businesses. For example, one such owner
currently uses high-deductible insurance
coupled with
health-savings accounts for employees. This
approach does not comply with PPACA’s
healthinsurance
controls. The addition of these major new costs
in 2014 and subsequent years has
reduced the value of the business today.
Removing those new costs would restore the
lost value.
15. The current health insurance premiums for
AAPS members will rise or have risen,
based on PPACA’s requirements, including
without limitation (a) prohibiting insurers from
excluding pre-existing conditions (children
immediately, and everyone in 2014), (b)
prohibiting
insurers from setting lifetime limits, (c)
requiring insurers to cover preventive health
services and
to allow children to remain on their parents’
plans through age 26, and (d) restricting
insurers’
use of annual limits on coverage.
16. PPACA’s new insurance mandates forces up
the insurance costs for most
Americans.
6
Physicians’ Third-Party Standing to Assert
Patients’ Rights
17. In addition to the concrete, first-party
injuries alleged in Paragraphs 11-16, AAPS
members who are physicians also have
standing to protect the patient-physician
relationship both
from their capacity as “vendors” under this
Circuit’s vendor-standing decisions and under
principles of third-party standing.
Procedural Injuries
18. Defendants have denied AAPS and its
members the opportunity for a rulemaking
that the APA required Defendants to hold
before adopting legislative rules that affect
AAPS
members’ interests. If the Court grants the
procedural relief requested in Paragraph 73,
and
Defendants initiate a rulemaking on their
linkage of Social Security benefits with
Medicare Part
A, AAPS and its members would comment in
that rulemaking proceeding. By taking the
complained-of actions without the rulemaking
proceedings required by the APA, Defendants
denied AAPS and its members’ procedural
rights conferred by Congress.
19. In addition to the procedural injuries in
Paragraph 18, AAPS members suffer
concrete injuries, see Paragraphs 11 to 17,
which fall within the zone of interests of the
relevant
statutes, see Paragraph 20. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs have procedural standing, which
relaxes the
showings required for immediacy and
redressability for substantive standing.
Zone of Interests
20. The injuries to AAPS and its members
satisfy the prudential zone-of-interests
tests because AAPS’s mission includes its
members’ medical practices and their own
medical
care, including the economic and liberty
interests in both medical practice and medical
care.
Nothing requires that AAPS members
participate as party plaintiffs.
7
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
21. The United States has waived its sovereign
immunity for actions against the
United States, its instrumentalities, and officers
for non-monetary injunctive and equitable
relief
and for the entry of judgments and decrees
against the United States in such actions. The
United
States has waived sovereign immunity for this
action and for the relief sought in Paragraph
73.
22. With Defendants specifically named in their
official capacities, sovereign
immunity does not shield Defendants’ ultra
vires actions. This Court possesses equity
jurisdiction over federal officers derived both
from the Court’s enabling legislation and from
the
historic equity jurisdiction of Maryland courts
over Maryland officers, prior to Maryland’s
ceding the District of Columbia as a federal
enclave.
23. As a matter of historical fact, at the time
that the states ratified the U.S.
Constitution, the equitable, judge-made
doctrine that allows use of the sovereign’s
courts in the
name of the sovereign to order the sovereign’s
officers to account for their conduct (i.e., the
rule
of law) was as least as firmly established and
as much a part of the legal system as the
judgemade
doctrine of federal sovereign immunity. No act
of Congress limits this Court’s equity
jurisdiction for an action against Defendants’
ultra vires acts.
IRREPARABLE HARM AND INADEQUATE
ALTERNATE REMEDIES
24. Plaintiffs’ action is not barred by the APA’s
“adequate-remedy bar,” 5 U.S.C.
§704, or analogous equitable doctrines
because no other provision of law provides an
adequate
alternate legal remedy for the injuries to
AAPS’s members.
25. Administrative remedies are not adequate
(and indeed are futile) for AAPS
members who are retirees and wish to leave
Medicare Part A while remaining on Social
Security
because the Defendants have signified that
they stand by the POMS and, in any event, the
POMS
8
set standards for the administrative hearings
whereas AAPS seeks to invalidate the POMS.
26. Administrative remedies are not even
available for AAPS members who are
practicing physicians and other medical
caregivers that have opted out of Medicare and
wish to
enter professional relationships with retirees,
but the POMS’ requiring retirees to forgo Social
Security as the cost of opting out of Medicare
Part A interferes with the ability of such
practicing
AAPS member physicians and other medical
caregivers that have opted out of Medicare.
The
retirees do not wish to lose their eligibility for
Social Security (and so continue to participate
in
Medicare Part A), and the AAPS member
physicians and other medical caregivers could
not
initiate an administrative challenge to the
retirees’ benefits in any event.
27. Because this Court has jurisdiction as a
threshold matter, the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2201-2202, provides
this Court the power to “declare the rights and
other legal relations of any interested party…,
whether or not further relief is or could be
sought.” 28 U.S.C. §2201; accord FED. R. CIV.
P. 57 advisory committee note (“the fact that
another remedy would be equally effective
affords no ground for declining declaratory
relief”).
28. A plaintiff’s irreparable injury and lack of an
adequate legal remedy justify
injunctive relief. In addition to the declaratory
relief requested in Paragraph 73, Plaintiffs are
entitled to injunctive relief because (a)
imminent and ongoing exposure to unlawful
federal
mandates under PPACA and denial of federal
benefits under the POMS constitute irreparable
injury; (b) as set forth in Paragraphs 24-26,
Plaintiffs lack an adequate alternate legal
remedy.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
BACKGROUND
29. The Constitution that created the United
States from the several states embodies a
form of federalism based on the dual
sovereignties of the federal government on the
one hand
and the state governments on the other.
9
30. Article I, section 1, provides Congress the
authority to tax and to spend to provide
for the general welfare of the United States.
Article I, section 8, authorizes Congress to
regulate
interstate commerce. Article I, sections 2 and
9, prohibit capitations and direct taxes.
31. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking
of private property for public use
without just compensation.
32. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the
states or to the people all powers not
expressly provided to the federal government.
Medicare and the Social Security Act
33. Medicare Act is codified at 42 USC §§1395
et seq., and Social Security is
codified at 42 USC §§401 et seq. Together,
these two statutes provide medical care
(Medicare)
and a pension (Social Security) for retired
Americans and represent the principal
government
safety net for them.
34. Defendants maintain a Program Operations
Manual System (“POMS”), which
includes (a) Waiver of Hospital Insurance
Entitlement by Monthly Beneficiary, POMS HI
00801.002, (b) Withdrawal Considerations,
POMS HI 00801.034, and (c) Withdrawal
Considerations When Hospital Insurance is
Involved, POMS GN 00206.020.
35. POMS HI 00801.002, POMS HI 00801.034,
and POMS GN 00206.020 represent
Defendants’ and SSA’s considered views on the
issue of eligibility for Social Security vis-à-vis
participation in Medicare Part A. Because that
connection is not present in the regulations or
statutes, legal consequences flow from POMS
HI 00801.002, POMS HI 00801.034, and POMS
GN 00206.020 (namely, non-participation in
Medicare Part A denies eligibility for Social
Security). POMS HI 00801.002, POMS HI
00801.034, and POMS GN 00206.020 represent
the
Defendants “final agency action” on the
subject.
10
Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act
36. On March 23, 2010, PPACA became law
after a party-line vote in the Senate and
nearly a party-line vote in the House, with 34
Democrats opposing the bill and no
Republicans
supporting it. PPACA greatly expanded federal
control over the medical industry, which
represents approximately one sixth of the
national economy. The United States has never
adopted such major legislation on such a
narrow, party-line vote.
37. PPACA mandates that individuals maintain
federally approved insurance or pay a
penalty, I.R.C. §5000A, and mandates that
“large employers” (i.e., those employing 50 or
more
fulltime employees) provide federally approved
insurance or pay a penalty, I.R.C. §4980H.
38. PPACA includes several provisions relevant
to standing: (a) prohibiting insurers
from excluding pre-existing conditions
(children immediately, and everyone in 2014),
§2704(a);
(b) prohibiting insurers from setting lifetime
limits, §2711(a)(2); (c) requiring insurers to
cover
preventive health services and to allow
children to remain on their parents’ plans
through age 26,
§2714(a); and (d) restricting insurers’ use of
annual limits on coverage, §2711(a)(2).
Administrative Procedure Act
39. The APA requires executive agencies to
conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking
when promulgating or amending substantive or
legislative rules. 5 U.S.C. §553(b)-(c). Although
an initial interpretation of a regulatory or
statutory provision can be exempt from the
notice-andcomment
requirements, 5 U.S.C. §553(b)(A), the APA
nonetheless requires agencies to undergo
notice-and-comment rulemaking when
amending a prior interpretation or when the
purported
interpretation in fact creates or destroys new
rights or obligations.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
40. Although millions of Americans rely on
Medicare and Social Security in their
11
retirement planning, both programs are
unsustainable in the long run under the status
quo
because their incoming funds will cease to
cover their outgoing obligations. Because it can
barely (if at all) afford to continue Medicare
and Social Security, the United States cannot
afford
another major entitlement program like PPACA
without first addressing the potential
insolvency
of Medicare and Social Security.
41. PPACA’s supporters in Congress
intentionally and misleadingly claimed that
PPACA would reduce the federal deficit by
approximately $138 billion over the first ten
years,
based on scoring from the Congressional
Budget Office (“CBO”). With CBO scoring,
however,
the assumptions that Congress imposes bind
CBO, even if the assumptions are not realistic.
42. All informed stakeholders know the
limitations of CBO scoring, such as counting
ten years of revenues (including approximately
$500 billion from Medicare) to pay for six years
to PPACA coverage, double counting revenues
from other programs such as Social Security
(approximately $50 billion) and the Community
Living Assistance Services and Supports
(“CLASS”) Act (approximately $70 billion), and
moving related expenses into stand-alone bills
solely to avoid including their totals in the
PPACA score (e.g., the approximately $210
billion
“doc fix” to stop a scheduled 21-percent cut in
Medicare payments to doctors).
43. On or about March 17, 2010, Defendant
Sebelius published an op-ed piece on the
PPACA bill entitled “Patient's plea makes the
best case for health care reform,” which cited
CBO for the proposition that “the president's
plan will lower the federal deficit by about
$100
billion over the next 10 years.” Defendant
Sebelius’ op-ed did not disclose the limitations
of the
CBO analysis, although she knew them.
44. On or about March 24, 2010, CBO reported
that Social Security would pay out
more than it took in revenue for 2010,
something that has not occurred in decades
and that SSA
12
had not predicted to occur until 2016. The
economic downturn exacerbated Social
Security’s
balance sheet by provided less income from
employment taxes and increased claims for
eligibility because of the sluggish economy.
COUNT I
APA RULEMAKING VIOLATION FOR POMS
45. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1-44 and
48-73 as if fully set forth herein.
46. POMS HI 00801.002, POMS HI 00801.034,
and POMS GN 00206.020 are
substantive rules, which therefore required
notice-and-comment rulemaking as the means
of
promulgating them. Defendants did not
conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking to
implement
POMS HI 00801.002, POMS HI 00801.034, and
POMS GN 00206.020.
47. For the foregoing reasons, the issuance of
POMS HI 00801.002, POMS HI
00801.034, and POMS GN 00206.020 was
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
not
otherwise in accordance with the law, in excess
of authority granted by law, ultra vires, and
without observance of procedure required by
law.
COUNT II
ULTRA VIRES TYING OF MEDICARE AND
SOCIAL SECURITY
48. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1-47 and
51-73 as if fully set forth herein.
49. POMS HI 00801.002, POMS HI 00801.034,
and POMS GN 00206.020 require
the acceptance of Medicare Part A as a
condition to receipt of Social Security benefits.
That
requirement is ultra vires Medicare, Social
Security, and the implementing regulations
because
the statutes allow participating in Social
Security without participating in Medicare Part
A.
50. For the foregoing reasons, the issuance of
POMS HI 00801.002, POMS HI
00801.034, and POMS GN 00206.020 was
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
not
otherwise in accordance with the law, in excess
of authority granted by law, and ultra vires.
13
COUNT III
UNLAWFUL EMPLOYER INSURANCE
MANDATE
51. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1-50 and
56-73 as if fully set forth herein.
52. Nothing in Article I or elsewhere in the U.S.
Constitution authorizes the federal
government to require private employers, with
no direct connection to or contract with the
federal government, to purchase health
insurance for employees, and nothing in Article
I or
elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution authorizes
the federal government to set the acceptable
terms
of health insurance.
53. The federal criteria for acceptable
insurance represent a means of subsidizing
federal policy on acceptable insurance terms
(e.g., exclusion of pre-existing conditions,
annual
and lifetime limits on coverage, and extended
coverage) by spreading costs to private
parties,
without relying on the Spending Clause or the
taxing authority. By forcing up premiums
generally, the federal imposition of criteria for
acceptable insurance policies and coverage
thus
represents a regulatory taking, without just
compensation, in violation of the Fifth
Amendment.
54. Because the requirement for employers to
insure their employees or pay a penalty
is central to PPACA’s economic viability and
because PPACA contains no severability clause,
Congress intended the entire PPACA to be
unenforceable if the employer insurance
mandate is
held invalid.
55. For the foregoing reasons, PPACA’s
uncompensated mandate for employers with
50 or more employees to purchase federally
approved health insurance is not in accordance
with
the law, in excess of authority granted by law,
and ultra vires.
COUNT IV
UNLAWFUL INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
56. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1-55 and
61-73 as if fully set forth herein.
14
57. Nothing in Article I or elsewhere in the U.S.
Constitution authorizes the federal
government to require individual citizens, with
no direct connection to or contract with the
federal government, to purchase health
insurance, and nothing in Article I or elsewhere
in the
U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal
government to set the acceptable terms of
health
insurance for such individuals.
58. The federal criteria for acceptable
insurance represent a means of subsidizing
federal policy on acceptable insurance terms
(e.g., exclusion of pre-existing conditions,
annual
and lifetime limits on coverage, and extended
coverage) by spreading costs to private
parties,
without relying on the Spending Clause or the
taxing authority. By forcing up premiums
generally, the federal imposition of criteria for
acceptable insurance policies and coverage
thus
represents a regulatory taking, without just
compensation, in violation of the Fifth
Amendment,
and an unlawful capitation or direct tax in
violation of violation of Article I, sections 2 and
9, of
the Constitution.
59. Because the requirement for individuals to
purchase insurance or pay a penalty is
central to PPACA’s economic viability and
because PPACA contains no severability clause,
Congress intended the entire PPACA to be
unenforceable if the individual mandate is held
invalid.
60. For the foregoing reasons, PPACA’s
uncompensated mandate for individuals to
purchase federally approved health insurance
is not in accordance with the law, in excess of
authority granted by law, and ultra vires.
COUNT V
ACCOUNTING FOR MEDICARE
61. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1-60 and
67-73 as if fully set forth herein.
15
62. Federal executive officers such as
Defendant Sebelius owe a fiduciary duty to the
American people to properly implement
important federal programs such as Medicare.
Notwithstanding that millions of Americans rely
on Medicare, that program faces insolvency
because of federal mismanagement.
63. In the face of Medicare’s prospective
insolvency, politicians try to avoid the
issue, and the Congress (through PPACA
specifically but also generally) relies on budget
gimmickry to avoid the difficult budgetary
issues presented. Indeed, Congress in PPACA
purports to cut half a trillion dollars from
Medicare to pay for new entitlements that the
United
States cannot afford.
64. Defendant Sebelius knowingly stated that
CBO’s scorings showed that PPACA
would reduce the federal deficit, when she
knows that the opposite is true in reality,
without the
unrealistic and narrowing assumptions that
CBO was compelled to make.
65. Congress and the American public need an
honest accounting on Medicare’s
solvency to address the urgent situation facing
Medicare.
66. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant
Sebelius’ conduct violates her fiduciary and
equitable duties.
COUNT VI
ACCOUNTING FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
67. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1-66 and
Paragraph 73 as if fully set forth
herein.
68. Federal executive officers such as
Defendant Astrue owe a fiduciary duty to the
American people to properly implement
important federal programs such as Social
Security.
Notwithstanding that millions of Americans rely
on Social Security, that program faces
16
insolvency because of federal
mismanagement.
69. In the face of Social Security’s prospective
insolvency, politicians try to avoid the
issue, and the Congress (through PPACA
specifically but also generally) relies on budget
gimmickry to avoid the difficult budgetary
issues presented.
70. Defendant Astrue knows that PPACA’s
budget scoring would redirect in excess
of $50 billion from Social Security, but has not
taken any appropriate action to protect Social
Security from PPACA on behalf of those who
rely on him and Social Security for their
retirement planning.
71. Congress and the American public need an
honest accounting on Social
Security’s solvency to address the urgent
situation facing Social Security.
72. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant
Astrue’s conduct violates his fiduciary and
equitable duties.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
73. Wherefore, Plaintiff AAPS respectfully asks
this Court to grant the following
relief:
A. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706, 28 U.S.C. §§1331,
2201-2202, the Acts of March 3, 1863, 12
Stat. 762, and June 25, 1936, 49 Stat. 1921 (as
amended), D.C. Code §11-501, Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 57, and this Court’s equitable
powers, a Declaratory Judgment that:
(i) Defendants adopted POMS HI 00801.002,
POMS HI 00801.034, and POMS GN
00206.020 without the required notice-and-
comment rulemaking;
(ii) In conditioning eligibility for Social Security
on participation in Medicare Part A,
POMS HI 00801.002, POMS HI 00801.034, and
POMS GN 00206.020 are ultra
vires Medicare and Social Security;
17
(iii) The federal government lacks authority
under the Commerce Clause and the
Tenth Amendment to compel businesses or
individuals to purchase health
insurance or pay an offsetting penalty;
(iv) Requiring the private purchase – by
individuals or businesses – of insurance with
greater coverage than the purchaser desires
constitutes a regulatory taking;
(v) Requiring individuals to purchase insurance
with greater coverage than the
purchaser desires constitutes a prohibited
capitation or direct tax; and
(vi) Defendants (and the Congress) have
breached their fiduciary duties to the
American people by allowing Social Security
and Medicare to face insolvency.
B. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706, 28 U.S.C. §§1331,
2202, the Acts of March 3, 1863, 12 Stat.
762, and June 25, 1936, 49 Stat. 1921 (as
amended), D.C. Code §11-501, and this Court’s
equitable powers, an Order providing that
(i) POMS HI 00801.002, POMS HI 00801.034,
and POMS GN 00206.020 are
vacated; and
(ii) Defendants are enjoined from re-
promulgating by rulemaking the substantive
requirements of POMS HI 00801.002, POMS HI
00801.034, and POMS GN
00206.020, except to the extent that those
substantive requirements are fully
consistent with the declaratory relief in
Paragraph 73(A);
(iii) Defendant Sebelius is enjoined from
promulgating federal criteria for acceptable
health insurance policies applicable to private
individuals or businesses;
(iv) Defendant Sebelius and any and all federal
officers acting in concert with her are
enjoined from promulgating or enforcing any
mandate that individuals or entities
purchase and carry health insurance;
18
(v) Defendant Sebelius shall prepare and
submit to this Court an accounting on
Medicare’s solvency; and
(vi) Defendant Astrue shall prepare and submit
to this Court an accounting on Social
Securities’ solvency.
C. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2412 and any other
applicable provisions of law or equity, award
AAPS its costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
D. Such other relief as may be just and proper.
Dated: March 26, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
Lawrence J. Joseph, D.C. Bar No. 464777
1250 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 669-5135
Telecopier: (202) 318-2254
Email: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.
/s/ Lawrence J. Joseph

*****

Doctors Against Obamacare – Rally in


D.C.
September 10, 2009, Washington, D.C. - by EL
MARCO
Today doctors, nurses and other medical
professionals came to Washington, D.C. from
across the country to show their opposition
to Obamacare. This rally exploded the
government-created myth that there is
unanimity amongst health care professionals
for Democrat plans to take over health care.
The Association of American Physicians and
Surgeons came to D.C. to present a petition
from doctors to lawmakers. The AAPS has been
a voice for private physicians since 1943. Their
motto is Omani pro aegroto, “all for the
patient”. The doctors met with the
representatives from their respective states and
argued for a platform that
avoids unnecessary bureaucratic intervention
in health care.

Association of American Physicians


and Surgeons, Inc.
A Voice for Private Physicians Since
1943
Omnia pro aegroto

1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9


Tucson, AZ 85716-3450
Phone: (800) 635-1196
http://www.aapsonline.org/hhslawsuit/
Dr. Shannon Norris, a radiologist from Atlanta, holds a
People’s Cube poster describing Obamacare as offering
“the efficiency of the Postal Service, the sustainability of
Social Security and all the compassion of the IRS”.
Dr. Steven Ellison, a cardiologist from Georgia, displays
graphically how doctors feel about being targeted by a party and
president that slander and demonize them. On the podium, speaker
after speaker talked about the slurs President Obama has made
about doctors performing unnecessary amputations and
tonsillectomies out of greed. Not only is it untrue that doctors
profit from these procedures, but the premise that they would do
such harm to their patients is an insult to doctors.
Dr. Hal Scherz, a pediatric urologist from Atlanta,
founded Docs for Patient Care to voice doctors’ opposition to the
“big rush” for a big government solution to health care reform. The
organization of doctors suggests practical proposals such as tort
reform, insurance reform, and opening up insurance pools between
states.

Their petition to Congress can be found


at TakeBackMedicine.com:

Physicians can no longer allow medical care in this country to be


controlled by government and insurance companies

Current reform options purport to be “cure-alls” for every


American. But we know that every patient is different, and just like
patients, there is no single big-government solution to change
health care in this country.

Instead, we need more diversity in solutions. Therefore, I support


changes that address the following issues:

Petition point: 1. INDEPENDENCE: Doctors are


professionals. They answer to their patients, not the
government or an insurance company or any other
third party. Treatments should be decided by doctor
and patient exclusively.

“We are not the enemy,” said Dr. Joyce Lovitt, a


pediatrician from Georgia.
Petition point: 2. VALUE OUR SERVICES:
Physicians have a right to be paid a market-based
fee for their services, and to be paid at the time of
service or within a reasonable period.
Dr. Lovitt: “Patients, we will cover your backs if you do not tie our hands behind our
backs.”

Petition point 3. DOCTORS ARE NOT INSURANCE


BILLING CLERKS: Physicians should not be forced to
act as billing or collection agents for third-parties,
whether private insurance or the government.
Petition point 4. REGULATIONS GET BETWEEN
PHYSICIANS & PATIENTS: Excessive regulatory
burden on physicians is interfering with patient care. We
must decrease regulations, not pass more.
Petition point 5. LIABILITY COSTS MUST BE
REDUCED: Costly defensive treatment and tests,
and predatory litigation result in excessive liability
costs for physicians and patients alike.
Dr. Scott Barbour, an orthopedic surgeon from Atlanta
addresses the rally.
Petition point 6. AUTONOMY: Neither physicians nor
patients should be forced to participate in government nor
private health care plans or programs.
Petition point 7. RIGHT TO CONTRACT: Neither
physicians nor patients should be prohibited from
entering into mutually agreeable private contracts
for services and payments.
Petition point 8. PRIVACY: Physicians must not be
forced to disclose patient records without the
express consent of patients.
Dr. Phil Gingery, U.S. Congressman from Georgia
addresses the Rally.
Dr. Michael Schlitt, a neurosurgeon from Seattle. He spoke
about a woman in England who had an aneurism and was
told by the National Health Service that there was nothing
they could do for her. They told her to enjoy her last few
days. She came to the U.S. and was treated by
Dr. Schlitt and is fine today. “Show me a place where
patients can get MRI’s the same day.” and the crowd
responded with a rousing “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” ”Who’s got
the best medical care in the world?” “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”
Howard Long, from Pleasanton, California is “a
country doctor.”
The basic question comes down to who do you want
making your health care decisions. Do you want them
made in a doctor’s office with men like these? Or do
you want them made by bureaucrats
and congressional ”staffers” in an office in the
building below?
UPDATE: OCT. 5 2009 - Obama Astroturfs whitehouse lawn with democrat Docs! -
What the media won’t tell you is that the doctors were former members of the “Doctors
for Obama” organization. GATEWAY PUNDIT

UPDATE: Sunday, September 20, 2009, Dr. C. L. Gray, President, Physicians for
Reform, writes exclusively for Pamela at Atlas Shrugs.

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/09/doctors-against-obamacare-rally-in-d-c/

=============================================================
• TAX DAY REVOLT- Washington DC 2010

• The Teaparty Movement, The Democrat Party, Racism


and Incitement!

• Showdown in Searchlight

• Obama Wants to Exploit Physicians not Listen to Them

• AMERICA'S TEAPARTY MOVEMENT

• 9/11 Families Rally Blasts Obama's Show Trial Travesty


• Tea Party Express Gathers Steam Across America

• OH WOW! OBA MAO in WASHINGTON

• TEA PARTY MOVEMENT DENOUNCES MEDIA


CORRUPTION

• Conservative Woodstock Rocks the Capital

• Doctors Against Obamacare - Rally in D.C.

• Organizing for America Bus Tour: Fabricating Consent


• Nazty Language and the Democrat Left

• Nancy and the Astroturfers

• 9/11 - NEVER FORGET - NEVER GIVE IN

• Selling Drugs and Revolution to Children in America

• It's 4:20. Do You Know Where Your Children Are?

• • Evil Right Wing Extremists Who Would Destroy


America Gather in Denver
• • Americans Are Not "Little Eichmanns"

• • Ward Churchill Trial in Denver - Education is the Motor


Force of Revolution

• • Colorado Says No To Obama's Package of Pork

• • Red State Gone Blue. Colorado

• • Islam Clouds Bali's Horizon

• • Dissent Against Radical Leftist Obama is Patriotic


previous posts

• April 2010 (2)


• March 2010 (2)
• February 2010 (1)
• December 2009 (1)
• November 2009 (2)
• October 2009 (2)
• September 2009 (3)
• August 2009 (4)
• June 2009 (1)
• April 2009 (2)
• March 2009 (2)
• February 2009 (1)
• November 2008 (3)
• October 2008 (3)
• August 2008 (9)
• July 2008 (1)
• June 2008 (1)
• April 2008 (9)

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/09/doctors-against-obamacare-rally-in-d-c/

*****
AMERICANS: PLEASE TAKE ACTIONS;
TELL THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT
THEIR SUPPORT FOR OBAMACARE IS
BAD MEDICINE FOR AMERICA &
AMERICAN FAMILIES. Thank You.

++CALL THE AMA OFFICE OR


++YOUR STATE MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION (CLICK HERE FOR LIST)
++AND LEAVE MESSAGE:
"Doctors -- please support PATIENTS, not
AMA leadership. NO on OBAMACARE”

AMA main office in Chicago: (800) 621-8335


and service.followup@ama-assn.org

Additional AMA contact information, including


email addresses, can be found here:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?
view=322