ObamaCare — Another step toward corporate socialized medicine in the U.S.

Surgical Neurology International
Article Type: 
Published Date: 
Friday, June 29, 2012

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010), more commonly referred to as ObamaCare, has become one of the most controversial pieces of legislation passed by the Democrat-controlled, 111th U.S. Congress during President Obama’s administration.

Obama announcing health care reformDespite significant political opposition and poll-after-poll evincing the American people’s strong dissatisfaction with a health care plan that was correctly seen as further socializing American medicine, ObamaCare was passed by the two houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the president on March 23, 2010.

One stated goal of the plan is ostensibly to "expand access to insurance for nearly 30 million Americans" (photo, above). And to accomplish this ”reform,” the Obama administration has introduced the elements of compulsion — and more ominously, unconstitutional powers.

To increase access to insurance for 30 million uninsured Americans, ObamaCare forces insurance companies and managed care plans to extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions; in effect, converting conventional rules of indemnity coverage (i.e., coverage for unforeseen medical illnesses and injuries) into prepayment for chronic medical care.

But perhaps the most egregious section of ObamaCare is to force uninsured Americans to purchase medical insurance. Noncompliance with this “reform” will trigger heavy fines imposed by the federal government as a penalty. This is referred to as the health insurance mandate, and it is quite different from National Health Insurance as in Canada (2,3,11), National Health Service as in Great Britain (6), or socialized medicine in France, Germany, and Japan.(12,16)  Thus, I make a relative distinction between the Obama administration’s plan for health care as corporate socialized medicine (i.e., public-private, corporativist partnerships) and the fully socialized medicine as in most European countries.(7-10)

HillaryCareThe price of socialized medicine in every country in which it has been implemented is the usurpation of liberty, the erosion of individual autonomy, the gradual loss of the freedom to choose — working in parallel with the rationing of medical services and technology because the raison d'être of socialism is to control the population by depriving the people of freedom and keeping them subservient and dependent on the State.

The free enterprise system in the United States has traditionally relied on free choice in a free market place, whether we are talking about buying a home, an automobile, computers — or medical care. Government compulsion and social engineering are not well received by free marketeers and individualists in our society.

Small steps, incremental “reforms,” have taken place in American medicine via increased rules and regulations regarding utilization and rationing of services, coverage, and payments to physicians, etc. But further large-scale attempts to socialize American medicine have been repeatedly defeated since 1965, when Medicare (i.e., health care for the elderly) and Medicaid (i.e., health care for the indigent) were instituted.(4,5,9) A good example of this rejection of socialized medicine was the failed attempt by President Bill Clinton to revamp the U.S. health care system in 1993-1994. The Health Security Act of 1993 was a grandiose effort to further socialized American medicine in a corporativist direction,(8-10) and was dubbed "HillaryCare" because the effort was led by former First Lady Hillary Clinton (photo, above), who serves today as President Obama's Secretary of State.

If there was so much opposition to ObamaCare, how did it get through Congress?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was introduced in the U.S. Congress in September 2009 when the Democrat Party still had majorities in both Houses of the American Congress. Despite those majorities, the Republican Party (GOP; “Grand Old Party”) was able to introduce several amendments and mount significant opposition to the legislation.

ObamaCare passed in the House of Representatives on October 8, 2009. The Senate then took up consideration of the bill and passed it “with amendment” on December 24, 2009.

According to the U.S. Constitution, when a bill that has already been passed by one house of congress is altered or has amendments added to it by the other house, then the bill must return to the originating house to be re-voted on and passed again with those changes or amendments. Because the Senate version of the ObamaCare bill passed “with amendment,” the bill had to go back to the House of Representatives to be reconsidered and re-voted on.

Likewise, if the House made any further changes or added any new amendments, the bill would then bounce back to the Senate for a re-vote. This process may seem unnecessarily cumbersome to foreigners, but the American Founding Fathers in their wisdom devised this method so that thoughtful consideration could be given to the making and passage of laws, and thus, hopefully preserve our constitutional republic. 

However, the legislative shenanigans used by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and her counterpart in the U.S. Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), to get the amended ObamaCare legislation finally through congress turned that process upside down. Even the Washington Post, not usually considered a “conservative” publication, astoundingly reported that Speaker Pelosi was willing to do anything to ram the bill through Congress in 2010.(13)

No More Socialized AnythingTime was of the essence because 2010 was also a mid-term election year in the United States. Given the growing voter dissatisfaction with the Obama administration, the slow economic recovery, and the mounting opposition to this bill (photo, left), the makeup of one or both houses of congress could potentially change in early 2011. This political consideration added great urgency to the need to get ObamaCare passed once and for all and signed into law before any of the newly elected congressional members were sworn in.

So, here is what transpired:

In 1974, Congress created a special methodology for balancing the budget, whereby the U.S. Senate could reduce the escalating budget deficit with a simple majority vote (i.e., 51 votes), rather than requiring the usual 60 votes that are needed to stop a filibuster. Under this Senate rule, the expediting process was called "reconciliation," but it was only to be used for balancing the budget.

First, President Obama and his Democrat congressional leaders, Pelosi and Reid, attempted to change the rules to effect passage of this legislation at any price. They used budget "reconciliation" rules to bypass the planned GOP Senate filibuster that would normally have allowed the Republicans to defeat the legislation with 41 Senate votes. (The 41-vote possibility became a potential reality when Massachusetts elected a Republican, Scott Brown, to the U.S. Senate on January 19, 2010.)ObamaCare legislation

Second, the Democrat congressional leaders invoked a convoluted concept of "procedural rules," to make sure one way or the other President Obama could get this cherished piece of legislation through Congress (photo, right).

The Washington Post article expounded the convoluted methodology as follows:

"Rather than passing the Senate bill and then passing the fixes, the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House "deems" the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes.

"The virtue of this, for Pelosi's members, is that they don't actually vote on the Senate bill. They only vote on the reconciliation package. But their vote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill...the bottom line is this: When the House votes on the reconciliation fixes, the Senate bill is passed, even if the Senate hasn't voted on the reconciliation fixes, and even though the House never specifically voted on the Senate bill."(13)

And that convoluted way of thinking did not even include Speaker Pelosi's “most revealing” comment expressed during an interview on Fox News on March 9, 2010: "We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it."(15)

So, to make the story brief, the socialist members in the U.S. Congress were willing to do anything to pass and have signed into law what Vladimir Lenin deemed "the keystone in the arch of socialism" — government control of medical care!

The ObamaCare legislation again passed in U.S. House of Representatives on March 21, 2010 by a Obama signing health care legislationtight vote of 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill! President Obama signed it into law two days later (photo, left).

The fact that the legislation was quickly repealed in a largely symbolic gesture by the newly elected House in a 245-189 vote that January 2011 tells how unpopular the law was and remains. President Obama was happy to take credit for ObamaCare when he thought the American people would approve of it with time; but in the intervening years that has not happened. Therefore, many of President Obama's followers are now distancing themselves from the law they helped create!

Violating the U.S. Constitution to Justify ObamaCare

The U.S. Constitution, unlike the constitutions in other countries or other forms of government, limits the power of the federal government to specifically enumerated powers. Powers that are not specifically granted by the constitution are not authorized. Additionally, the first Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enshrined as the Bill of Rights, even forbid Congress from passing laws restricting individual freedom. For example, the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Second Amendment forbids the government from disarming law-abiding citizens, etc.

It has been stated that the "Welfare Clause" in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to distribute entitlements and to redistribute wealth in the form of socialism. But in discussing this clause, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "a distinct substantive power, to do any act which might tend to the general welfare, is to render all the enumerations [of their specific constitutional powers] useless, and to make their power unlimited."

And James Madison, the “Father of the U.S. Constitution,” in a letter to fellow patriot Edmund Pendleton dated January 21, 1792, wrote: "[If] Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." In other words, there is no authorization in the U.S. Constitution for the implementation of socialism in America.

Likewise, our constitution does not authorize the federal government to take over the U.S. health care system. To legally justify the implementation of ObamaCare, particularly the section that forces American citizens to buy health care coverage, congressional democrats and the president have used the (interstate) commerce clause of the constitution (that empowers congress to regulate the interstate commerce among the individual states of the nation).

Again, this "broad construction" (interpretation) of the constitution is tantamount to a usurpation of power that would erase the limits of authority set for the federal government by the framers of our constitution. Nor have specific contravening amendments been passed to legally alter those constitutional limits.

U.S. Supreme CourtThe limits have been exceeded only by the judicial activism of court rulings, based on the two aforementioned broad interpretations of the “General Welfare” and “Commerce” clauses. The intention of the Founders was never for congress or a complicit activist Supreme Court to use commerce and trade between the states to wantonly approve unconstitutional federal legislation.

As a result, a majority of the states acting individually, as well as numerous civic and professional organizations, have filed lawsuits in federal court challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.(1) The U.S. Supreme Court (photo, above) has agreed to review the lawsuits in March 2012 “as part of the three days of public oral arguments scheduled for March 26-28. There, lawyers for the Obama administration and a coalition of 26 states and private groups will separately plead their case on the health care law's legal limits."(14)

Let’s hope reason and constitutionality prevail, and that at least part, if not all, of the most egregious sections of ObamaCare are declared unconstitutional and repealed by the U.S. Supreme Court.


1. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). Medicaid Expansion, Individual Mandate, & Entire PPACA Unconstitutional, Doctors Tell Supreme Court. January 23, 2012.

2. Aubrey, ME. Canada's Fatal Error — Health Care as a Right (Part I). Medical Sentinel 2001;6(1):26-28.

3. Aubrey, ME. Canada's Fatal Error — Health Care as a Right (Part II). Medical Sentinel 2001;6(2):57-60.

4. Blaylock, R. National Health Insurance (Part I): The Socialist Nightmare. August 19, 2009. HaciendaPublishing.com.

5. Blaylock, R. National Health Insurance (Part II): Any Social Utility in the Elderly? September 26, 2009. HaciendaPublishing.com.

6. Butler, E. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom: Model for the United States? J Med Assoc Ga 1993;82(12):643-645.

7. Faria, M. ObamaCare — Toward Free Market or Socialized Medicine. GOPUSA.com, September 26, 2011.

8. Faria, M. Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine. Macon, Ga., Hacienda Publishing, 1997.

9. Faria, M. Vandals at the Gates of Medicine — Historic Perspectives on the Battle Over Health Care Reform. Macon, Ga., Hacienda Publishing, 1995.

10. Faria, M. Corporate Socialized Medicine Threatens Medical Profession. Human Events, August 15, 1997, p 12-13.

11. Goodman, WE. Re-privatizing Medicine in Canada — By the Back Door. Medical Sentinel 1997;2(1):16-18.

12. Henderson, JW. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and the Delivery of Health Care in France. J Med Assoc Ga 1993;82(12):651-655.

13. Klein, E. Strategy for Passing Health-Care Reform. Washington Post, March 15, 2010.  http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/nancy_pelosis_strate...

14. Mears, B. All Nine Justices Will Vote on Health Care. Jan. 23, 2012.  http://www.news8000.com/news/politics/All-nine-justices-will-vote-on-hea....

15. Pelosi, N. Fox News, March 9, 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

16. Schlitt, M. Health Care Systems in Japan and Germany Provide Facts, Not Theories. J Med Assoc Ga 1993;82(12):651-655. 

Article written by: Dr. Miguel Faria

Dr. Miguel A. Faria is a former Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine; Member Editorial Board of Surgical Neurology International (2011-present); Recipient of the Americanism Medal from the Nathaniel Macon Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) 1998; Ex member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2002-05; Founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel (1996-2002); Editor Emeritus, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS); Author, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995), Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997), and Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002).

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. ObamaCare — Another step toward corporate socialized medicine in the U.S. Surgical Neurology International 2012 3(1):71-71. Available from: http://surgicalneurologyint.com/surgicalint_articles/obamacare-another-s...

An edited version of this article was published in GOPUSA.com on March 20, 2012.

Copyright © 2012 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., MD

Your rating: None Average: 5 (5 votes)
Comments on this post

ObamaCare: will you keep your doctor?

The next ObamaCare challenge will be keeping your doctor
By Associated Press November 21, 2013

"WASHINGTON -- After they get the website fixed, then what? Keeping your doctors and hospitals may be the next vexing challenge for Americans in the new health plans created by President Barack Obama's law. Obama promised people could keep their doctors. But in many states the new plans appear to offer a narrow choice of hospitals and doctors. Overall, it's shaping up as less choice than what people get through Medicare or employer-based coverage. Also, it can get complicated tracking down which medical providers are in what plans.

" ' The next shoe is going to drop sometime after Jan. 1, when people actually start using their plans,' said health economist Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare for President George H.W. Bush. Whether or not they can keep their doctor is going to depend on whether their doctor was chosen — or wanted to be — part of a plan on the (insurance) exchange."

"Income Inequality!"

"It's the family, stupid" by Linda Chavez, GOPUSA, Dec. 9, 2013

"The president tried changing the subject this week from Obamacare to income inequality. It's no surprise. Despite White House claims that Healthcare.gov is now working as intended, reports of major failures -- from inaccurate enrollment data being sent to insurers to dangerously inadequate security -- continue. And the president's critics include those on the left, as well as the right, which is why President Obama has returned to campaign mode..."

NewsWatcher: “Uncle Sam can’t replace fathers…” That is not what Obama thinks. He and his cronies believe the government is the great and mighty, all powerful, father god and savior...

Dido: ObamaCare, which is a giant step toward more socialized medicine (building the arc of socialism) and medical rationing, and the talk and thread of “income inequality” (Marxism) are both concepts of the Socialist-in-Chief to foster socialism. And it is ironic he is the one that has widened the gap of misery and “income inequality,” I suppose, so he can “fix it" with more collectivism!

ObamaCare— a Socialist Scam!

"Obamacare, a deliberate scam to introduce single payer" By Emily Miller, Washington Times (DC), November 2, 2013

Obamacare may have crashed sooner than the White House wanted, but it was always intended to end in failure. The Affordable Care Act could not simply provide coverage for the uninsured while letting the rest of Americans keep their own health care at the same price. President Obama made a lot of promises to get the law passed and enacted in order to push toward his ultimate goal: the whole country on a single-payer, government-run health care system

On Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius attempted to persuade Congress that the colossal failure of the healthcare.gov website was evidence that "millions of Americans are clearly eager to learn about their options and to finally achieve health security." At the end of the lengthy hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers pointed to a video screen and showed Mrs. Sebelius that the Obamacare website had been down for the entire hearing. "This is more than a broken website. This is a broken law," said the Washington Republican. "Millions of Americans are getting notices their plans are being canceled."

Asked about the NBC report that up to 80 percent of the 14 million Americans with individual policies will be canceled, the secretary countered, "They can get health insurance. They must be offered new plans, new options, either inside the marketplace, or if they don't qualify for a financial subsidy, they can shop inside or outside of the marketplace." In other words, Obamacare's mandated standards - like maternity care, mental health coverage, mammograms and prescriptions - means Americans are forced into either spending up to double their previous premiums or going through the government. That has been borne out by thousands of American families who wanted to keep their health plans but have received letters from their insurers saying they could not...

The other way that the health care law is designed to force people into government programs is by expanding the Medicaid system, which is a budget-buster and a risk for worse health care. Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, said on Fox News on Tuesday, "The design was to push a growing number of people onto Medicaid programs across the country, moving more and more people into like a single- payer-type environment."

... Ten years ago, Mr. Obama openly called himself a "proponent of a single-payer, universal health care program." He moderated his stance when running for national office, but only owing to the logistical difficulty in moving everyone away from private coverage to government insurance plans. This reveals that he doesn't put his faith in the private sector, market economics or individual choice.

Emily Miller is a senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times and author of Emily Gets Her Gun (Regnery, 2013).

The liberal media waking up to Obama?

I have received the following notes and article from a friend in Miami. Read on:


"Finally, the Washington Post and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, the Washington Post and Newsweek have a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editors saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media. L.C.NewsweekObama

"I Too Have Become Disillusioned."

By Matt Patterson, columnist Washington Post, New York Post, and the San Francisco Examiner)

"Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

"Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;"a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

"He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

'Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of
his skin.

"Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

"Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about

"Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is..."

MAF replies:

Unfortunately the liberal media waited until well after the re-election to come forward with any criticism of the imperial president! And of course they can now cite this smokescreen, rare article as proof of their objectivity and balance reporting! Thank you for sending it.

And...it is still better that nothing! Un abrazo de Miguel and Helen Faria

Laida replies:

The problem is that this country is being directed by Obama and this administration towards a very dangerous future ( and I fear the election of Hillary Clinton  in 2016)... no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave...!  
May God have mercy on the United States of America!
Best Wishes to both of you,

Esprit d' escalier!

Esprit d' escalier — And I wonder, if any those voting citizens sleep walking through the first four years of his presidency, watch the masterful movie documentary 2016 Obama's America (2012) directed By Dinesh D'Souza  and John Sullivan for a political re-awakening?


Dr Carson on Obama

Corrupt entitlements!

Thank you for posting the Judge Judy video exposing the corruption of the entitlement mentality that is ruining our country.


I also checked out the video archives and found some other treasures there!

ObamaCare and MSAs

"I was recently notified that the ObamaCare plan will restrict my pre tax flexible spending account limit from $5,000 to $2,500. With two children in braces and the normal costs of doctors, dentists, and medicines, this change in 2013 has a direct impact on my finances and taxes. Wake up people, see the damage this is causing working people..."
-- Greg Kimball, the Macon Telegraph, 11/2/12

I must say I told you so –

Faria, M. ObamaCare — Toward Free Market or Socialized Medicine. GOPUSA.com, September 26, 2011.

A Core Constituency

As a trial and plaintiff DUI attorney, you are an important member of the core constituency of the Obama regime. So, I'm not at all surprised you support socialized medicine for doctors but free market for lawyers. So, attorneys can continue to enjoy their fishing expeditions and preying on businessmen, doctors, and everyone else!

A conversation among friends

Dear Russell,

...I have not fully read his text [Chief Justice Roberts in his majority ruling opinion on ObamaCare, June 28, 2012], but I think that there is another interpretation of what Roberts did. I think he did not want the Supreme Court to continue to make social legislation. By taking his tack, and justifying the costs as a tax, he forced the American Public to make the decision. That places the decision squarely on the public in the fall. I could be wrong but it fits with his past conservative record...But the key is will the people understand what is happening? The pollsters seem to believe that they do. The real question you have raised is, who is behind all of this?

When I have trouble figuring out what is going on in different situations, I ask myself, "Who will benefit from these policies or proposals?" That question immediately leads to a sensible answer. It is obviously that it is those who want power over the people. Who is that in today's society and world? It is the super rich, bankers, politicians that Rasmussen describes as "The Political Class" as opposed to "The People," who are the rest.

To me Miguel's paper was his usual excellent one in documentation and accuracy. The most startling statement I had not heard was his quotation of Lenin, who said that Socialized Medicine was the Keystone in the establishment of Socialism. As Miguel [Dr Faria] stated this has been tried for 50 years.

I remember my father and his colleagues and the AMA under Morris Fishbein, at the time resisting Medicare because of their fears of what we have seen happen now. We will see in November. To me, ObamaCare will become irrelevant. The coming economic crisis worldwide will take us into another Major Depression. We will not be able to afford ObamaCare or any of its provisions as we collapse economically much less Welfare or Entitlements. This crisis will change many things. 

I agree with you about what Miguel has written. I always enjoy it. 


Dr Jim Ausman, is an eminent neurosurgeon, scientist, and Editor-in-Chief of Surgical Neurology International (SNI), a premier, peer-reviewed, online world neurosurgical/ neuroscience journal.

Dear Miguel,

I just downloaded and read your excellent article on ObamaCare. As all that you have written, this is a critical discussion of how we have been led to the slaughter. The largest of the  insurance corporations, that is, those who are politically connected, as you point out, have sold their souls for a  share of the corporativist pie. Now that the Supreme Court has betrayed the American people and defied the Constitution, we have little hope. I truly doubt that Romney, should he win, would reverse it. I am seeing the construction of one of the most powerful, intrusive and terrifying police states the world has ever seen and it is almost complete. May God bless us all.

Excellent Job—I look forward to more of your excellent writings.


Dr Russell L. Blaylock is a retired neurosurgeon, world renown nutritionist, and the author of a number of books and papers, including Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills (1994), Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life (2002), and Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients (2003), and writes a monthly newsletter, the Blaylock Wellness Report (Newsmax.com).

Dear friends,

I have already penned a response to the ruling, which is posted above. As always, I thank you both–whom I hold in such esteem as dear friends and colleagues of the highest order– for your kind accolades. MAF

My response

My response to the ObamaCare Supreme Court ruling of June 28, 2012 is found below: