Munchkin Man
EOG Dedicated
Greetings:
As the old saying goes, one picture is worth a thousand words:
Munchkin Man
As the old saying goes, one picture is worth a thousand words:
Munchkin Man
A Vision Of Obamacare
- Thread starter Munchkin Man
- Start date
brucefan
EOG Dedicated
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
I am shocked, how bout you? :doh1
CBO Adds $115 Billion to ObamaCare's Price Tag
Peter Suderman | May 12, 2010
Remember when health care reform was supposed to cost "around $900 billion?" That's what Obama promised, anyway. And sure, the final cost estimate for the law came in at about $950 billion?close enough for government work, I suppose?but a new report from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the law will actually require about $115 billion in additional discretionary spending, putting the official price tag well over $1 trillion. Here's Politico's summary:
Anyone still willing to call this overhaul "fiscally responsible?"
I am shocked, how bout you? :doh1
CBO Adds $115 Billion to ObamaCare's Price Tag
Peter Suderman | May 12, 2010
Remember when health care reform was supposed to cost "around $900 billion?" That's what Obama promised, anyway. And sure, the final cost estimate for the law came in at about $950 billion?close enough for government work, I suppose?but a new report from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the law will actually require about $115 billion in additional discretionary spending, putting the official price tag well over $1 trillion. Here's Politico's summary:Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections.
The additional spending ? if approved over the years by Congress ? would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to over $1 trillion.
The additional spending ? if approved over the years by Congress ? would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to over $1 trillion.
...The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal agencies to spend $10 billion to $20 billion over 10 years on administrative costs to implement the overhaul. The CBO expects Congress to spend an additional $105 billion over 10 years to fund discretionary programs in the overhaul.
And remember: That original $950 billion sticker, which theoretically tallies up the first decade of costs, only counted 6 years of full-swing spending. And it ignored the cost of the insurance mandate, which, if counted, probably would have added an additional trillion dollars or more to the total cost. But as they say at The Onion, "If you love America, you throw money in its hole!"
Anyone still willing to call this overhaul "fiscally responsible?"
Spytheweb
EOG Addicted
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
We need single payer health care.
"Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.
Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care."
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources
We need single payer health care.
"Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.
Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care."
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources
brucefan
EOG Dedicated
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Ron Paul: Obama Care is Bad for your Health
<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/pJIHN1t6z0Q&hl=en_US&fs=1& width=640 height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
<EMBED src=http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgc3ePwI%2Em4v width=480 height=360 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always">
</EMBED><!-- / signature -->
Ron Paul: Obama Care is Bad for your Health
<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/pJIHN1t6z0Q&hl=en_US&fs=1& width=640 height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
<EMBED src=http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgc3ePwI%2Em4v width=480 height=360 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always">
</EMBED><!-- / signature -->
brucefan
EOG Dedicated
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
<IFRAME id=_atssh48 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; Z-INDEX: 100000; LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 1px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; POSITION: absolute; TOP: 0px; HEIGHT: 1px" name=_atssh48 src="//s7.addthis.com/static/r07/sh21.html#cb=0&ab=-&dh=forums.eog.com&dr=&du=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.eog.com%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D275456&dt=&inst=1&lng=en-us&pc=men-200&pub=&ssl=0&sid=4c53a97073c35574&srd=1&srf=0.02&srp=0.2&srx=0&ver=200&xck=0&rev=79292" width=1 height=1 frameborder="0"></IFRAME>
Im sure this is gonna work out great :doh1
AMERICA?S NEW HEALTH CARE SYSTEM REVEALED
Updated Chart Shows Obamacare's Bewildering Complexity
Jul 28 2010
High Resolution Version of Chart (PDF) ?
Washington, DC ? Four months after U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously declared ?We have to pass the bill so you can find out what?s in it,? a congressional panel has released the first chart illustrating the 2,801 page health care law President Obama signed into law in March.
Developed by the Joint Economic Committee minority, led by U.S Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the detailed organization chart displays a bewildering array of new government agencies, regulations and mandates.
?For Americans, as well as Congressional Democrats who didn?t bother to read the bill, this first look at the final health care law confirms what many fear, that reform morphed into a monstrosity of new bureaucracies, mandates, taxes and rationing that will drive up health care costs, hurt seniors and force our most intimate health care choices into the hands of Washington bureaucrats,? said Brady, the committee?s senior House Republican. ?If this is what passes for health care reform in America, then God help us all.?
Brownback, the committee?s ranking member, added, ?This updated chart illustrates the overwhelming expansion of government control over health choices and the bewildering complexity facing everyone affected by this law. It doesn?t take long to see how the recently signed health care bill causes a hugely expensive and explosive expansion of federal control over health care. Personal choices that should be between a doctor and a patient will quickly be strangled in a never ending web of bureaucracy.?
Senate Steering Committee Chairman Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) called Obamacare ?a bureaucratic nightmare. The Democrats? takeover of health care creates a byzantine network of 159 new federal programs and bureaucracies to make decisions that should be between just the patient and their doctor. It should concern everyone that at the center of this regulatory web is the new CMS chief, Donald Berwick, who has championed rationing and European socialized medicine. Americans were rightly outraged that this big government bill was rushed through Congress before anyone read or fully understood the bill?s consequences. Republicans will fight to repeal this reckless takeover and to ensure health care freedom to American families.?
In addition to capturing the massive expansion of government and the overwhelming complexity of new regulations and taxes, the chart portrays:
<SCRIPT src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
Related Files:
<IFRAME id=_atssh48 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; Z-INDEX: 100000; LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 1px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; POSITION: absolute; TOP: 0px; HEIGHT: 1px" name=_atssh48 src="//s7.addthis.com/static/r07/sh21.html#cb=0&ab=-&dh=forums.eog.com&dr=&du=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.eog.com%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D275456&dt=&inst=1&lng=en-us&pc=men-200&pub=&ssl=0&sid=4c53a97073c35574&srd=1&srf=0.02&srp=0.2&srx=0&ver=200&xck=0&rev=79292" width=1 height=1 frameborder="0"></IFRAME>
Im sure this is gonna work out great :doh1
AMERICA?S NEW HEALTH CARE SYSTEM REVEALED
Updated Chart Shows Obamacare's Bewildering Complexity
Jul 28 2010
High Resolution Version of Chart (PDF) ?Washington, DC ? Four months after U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously declared ?We have to pass the bill so you can find out what?s in it,? a congressional panel has released the first chart illustrating the 2,801 page health care law President Obama signed into law in March.
Developed by the Joint Economic Committee minority, led by U.S Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the detailed organization chart displays a bewildering array of new government agencies, regulations and mandates.
?For Americans, as well as Congressional Democrats who didn?t bother to read the bill, this first look at the final health care law confirms what many fear, that reform morphed into a monstrosity of new bureaucracies, mandates, taxes and rationing that will drive up health care costs, hurt seniors and force our most intimate health care choices into the hands of Washington bureaucrats,? said Brady, the committee?s senior House Republican. ?If this is what passes for health care reform in America, then God help us all.?
Brownback, the committee?s ranking member, added, ?This updated chart illustrates the overwhelming expansion of government control over health choices and the bewildering complexity facing everyone affected by this law. It doesn?t take long to see how the recently signed health care bill causes a hugely expensive and explosive expansion of federal control over health care. Personal choices that should be between a doctor and a patient will quickly be strangled in a never ending web of bureaucracy.?
Senate Steering Committee Chairman Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) called Obamacare ?a bureaucratic nightmare. The Democrats? takeover of health care creates a byzantine network of 159 new federal programs and bureaucracies to make decisions that should be between just the patient and their doctor. It should concern everyone that at the center of this regulatory web is the new CMS chief, Donald Berwick, who has championed rationing and European socialized medicine. Americans were rightly outraged that this big government bill was rushed through Congress before anyone read or fully understood the bill?s consequences. Republicans will fight to repeal this reckless takeover and to ensure health care freedom to American families.?
In addition to capturing the massive expansion of government and the overwhelming complexity of new regulations and taxes, the chart portrays:
- $569 billion in higher taxes;
- $529 billion in cuts to Medicare;
- swelling of the ranks of Medicaid by 16 million;
- 17 major insurance mandates; and
- the creation of two new bureaucracies with powers to impose future rationing: the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Independent Payments Advisory Board.
Brady admits committee analysts could not fit the entire health care bill on one chart. ?This portrays only about one-third of the complexity of the final bill. It?s actually worse than this.?
###
<SCRIPT src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
Related Files:
- HC Chart Press Release
HC Chart Press Release.pdf (513.4 KBs)
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Health Care Premiums Are Already Soaring In Advance of Obamacare
Even before Obamacare kicks into high gear, the consumer is getting taken advantage of with any recourse.
This past month millions of Americans got notice from Blue Cross/Blue Shield providers across the country that their were going way up effective immediately. Here is the terse reason CareFirst/ Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Washington gave its subscribers for raising a monthly premium from $333 to $512 on a middle aged man who is healthy, is not a smoker and is not obese: "Your new rate reflects the overall rise in health care costs and we regret having to pass these additional costs on to you."
Recently, Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly also received a similar notice from his health care provider, (Anthem Blue Cross), and was told that his annual premium will increase by $2,100.
The excuse given was the same boilerplate as set forth above.
An 85-year-old New Yorker received notice from his health care provider, (Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield), wherein he was notified that:
1. His Medicare is being increased from $1,068 to $1,100;
2. His co-insurance liability for skilled nursing facilities is being increased from $267 per day to $275 per day and that 60 lifetime reserve days is being increased from $534 to $550;
3. His Medicare Part B deductible is being increased from $135 to $155.
American health care providers are gouging consumers in advance of Obamacare taking effect in 2014.
According to publicly available profit and loss statements, our nation's largest health care providers such as, Wellpoint, United Health Group, Cigna and Aetna collectively posted a net income of over 12 billion dollars in 2009.
Is it not just a little bit suspicious and beyond coincidence that so many Americans are receiving these letters from separate "independent" health care providers all over the country? The letters are almost identical in content and verbiage.
According to the Consumers Union report, not-for-profit Blue Cross/Blue Shield groups are raising health insurance premiums by as much as double digits to build up their cash reserves -- in some instances to more than three times what states require.
It is no secret that these companies generate substantial investment income from reserves.
Here are just a few of the worst examples cited by Consumers Union:
- Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona raised its reserves from $648 million in 2007 to $717 million in 2009 (more than seven times the amount required in that state). During that time, individual policy rates jumped about 40 percent.
- Health Care Services Corp., which includes Blues plans in Texas, Illinois, New Mexico and Oklahoma, built up its surplus from $6.1 billion in 2007 to $6.7 billion in 2009, five times the minimum in those states. Meanwhile, its plans' rates rose by up to 20 percent a year.
So which is it? Are the companies raising rates to build reserves or are they raising rates in advance of rising costs they are anticipating by Obamacare, or are they raising rates because of an actual rise in the of actual medical costs? You cannot get a straight answer.
If, in fact, health care providers are sitting on piles on cash that is far in excess of what it should be under state laws, why are they not rebating those surpluses to policyholders, as many automobile insurance companies do?
Another example of how Obamacare has influenced the behavior of health care providers is that under the new federal law it mandates that no more that 20 percent of every premium dollar be attributable to administrative costs. Therefore many companies who currently run 26 percent of administrative costs for every dollar have now "reclassified" many administrative services as "medical" so they do not lose income and can avoid reducing overhead.
In April of this year, the U.S. Senate reported that Wellpoint alone reclassified more than half a billion dollars in services from "administrative" to "medical."
The bottom line is that in advance of Obamacare the consumer is getting taken advantage of with any recourse.
Looming over their heads is a law that does not even take effect until 2014. In the meantime We the People are stuck between greedy insurance companies and incompetent government.
Now is the time to repeal and replace Obamacare. The answer to health care reforms does not lie in creating a government system it lies in improving a free market system. Here are some of the reforms that should be done:
1. Creation of refundable for health care costs;
2. Strengthening health savings accounts;
3. Repeal of the 7/5% threshold on deduction for medical expenses;
4. Allow for purchase of health care insurance across state lines;
and
5. Facilitate the import on FDA approved drugs.
At a time of deep recession, high unemployment, record home foreclosures and personal and business bankruptcies, the last thing we need is further economic uncertainty looming with regard to nationalized health care.
America, let's not accept commercial gouging or government incompetence and bureaucracy. Let's fix what needs fixing!
A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown University and a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.
Health Care Premiums Are Already Soaring In Advance of Obamacare
Even before Obamacare kicks into high gear, the consumer is getting taken advantage of with any recourse.
This past month millions of Americans got notice from Blue Cross/Blue Shield providers across the country that their were going way up effective immediately. Here is the terse reason CareFirst/ Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Washington gave its subscribers for raising a monthly premium from $333 to $512 on a middle aged man who is healthy, is not a smoker and is not obese: "Your new rate reflects the overall rise in health care costs and we regret having to pass these additional costs on to you."
Recently, Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly also received a similar notice from his health care provider, (Anthem Blue Cross), and was told that his annual premium will increase by $2,100.
The excuse given was the same boilerplate as set forth above.
An 85-year-old New Yorker received notice from his health care provider, (Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield), wherein he was notified that:
1. His Medicare is being increased from $1,068 to $1,100;
2. His co-insurance liability for skilled nursing facilities is being increased from $267 per day to $275 per day and that 60 lifetime reserve days is being increased from $534 to $550;
3. His Medicare Part B deductible is being increased from $135 to $155.
American health care providers are gouging consumers in advance of Obamacare taking effect in 2014.
According to publicly available profit and loss statements, our nation's largest health care providers such as, Wellpoint, United Health Group, Cigna and Aetna collectively posted a net income of over 12 billion dollars in 2009.
Is it not just a little bit suspicious and beyond coincidence that so many Americans are receiving these letters from separate "independent" health care providers all over the country? The letters are almost identical in content and verbiage.
According to the Consumers Union report, not-for-profit Blue Cross/Blue Shield groups are raising health insurance premiums by as much as double digits to build up their cash reserves -- in some instances to more than three times what states require.
It is no secret that these companies generate substantial investment income from reserves.
Here are just a few of the worst examples cited by Consumers Union:
- Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona raised its reserves from $648 million in 2007 to $717 million in 2009 (more than seven times the amount required in that state). During that time, individual policy rates jumped about 40 percent.
- Health Care Services Corp., which includes Blues plans in Texas, Illinois, New Mexico and Oklahoma, built up its surplus from $6.1 billion in 2007 to $6.7 billion in 2009, five times the minimum in those states. Meanwhile, its plans' rates rose by up to 20 percent a year.
So which is it? Are the companies raising rates to build reserves or are they raising rates in advance of rising costs they are anticipating by Obamacare, or are they raising rates because of an actual rise in the of actual medical costs? You cannot get a straight answer.
If, in fact, health care providers are sitting on piles on cash that is far in excess of what it should be under state laws, why are they not rebating those surpluses to policyholders, as many automobile insurance companies do?
Another example of how Obamacare has influenced the behavior of health care providers is that under the new federal law it mandates that no more that 20 percent of every premium dollar be attributable to administrative costs. Therefore many companies who currently run 26 percent of administrative costs for every dollar have now "reclassified" many administrative services as "medical" so they do not lose income and can avoid reducing overhead.
In April of this year, the U.S. Senate reported that Wellpoint alone reclassified more than half a billion dollars in services from "administrative" to "medical."
The bottom line is that in advance of Obamacare the consumer is getting taken advantage of with any recourse.
Looming over their heads is a law that does not even take effect until 2014. In the meantime We the People are stuck between greedy insurance companies and incompetent government.
Now is the time to repeal and replace Obamacare. The answer to health care reforms does not lie in creating a government system it lies in improving a free market system. Here are some of the reforms that should be done:
1. Creation of refundable for health care costs;
2. Strengthening health savings accounts;
3. Repeal of the 7/5% threshold on deduction for medical expenses;
4. Allow for purchase of health care insurance across state lines;
and
5. Facilitate the import on FDA approved drugs.
At a time of deep recession, high unemployment, record home foreclosures and personal and business bankruptcies, the last thing we need is further economic uncertainty looming with regard to nationalized health care.
America, let's not accept commercial gouging or government incompetence and bureaucracy. Let's fix what needs fixing!
A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown University and a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Markie, are the modest premiums you must pay to the Canadian government for your single-payer health care insurance rising anytime soon?
Markie, are the modest premiums you must pay to the Canadian government for your single-payer health care insurance rising anytime soon?
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Video: Large companies will get hit with 9% increase in health costs under ObamaCare
Share25<script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script>
posted at 3:35 pm on August 18, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
<small> printer-friendly </small>
Douglas Holtz-Eakin discusses a new survey on the impact of ObamaCare on large companies in this clip from Fox News. This survey of employers with five thousand employees shows that executives are planning for a sharp increase in health-care costs, mainly from new mandates in ObamaCare and the lack of control over the actual costs in providing health care. Those costs will get passed to employees in part, but it’s also likely to reduce their impulse to expand jobs in the next couple of years. The former CBO director also predicts that companies will look at shedding their retiree coverage programs, as predicted during the ObamaCare debate — and will end up pushing more people onto Medicare and Medicaid:
<script src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4314131&w=466&h=263" type="text/javascript"></script><iframe src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4314131&w=466&h=263" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" width="466" frameborder="0" height="263" scrolling="no"></iframe><noscript>Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com</noscript>
Some of these costs were expected, but Democrats argued that the tax breaks in the plan would offset the damage, especially for smaller businesses. The Orange County Register reports on another analysis of the bill that determined that less than half the number of small businesses predicted by ObamaCare advocates will actually qualify:In California, only a third of the state’s employers will wind up qualifying, thanks to the high salary level in the state. That won’t do anything to boost the economy, of course, but instead will give employers more reason to give up insurance benefits altogether. Cost increases that far outstrip inflation cannot be borne without either eliminating the source of the increase, reducing compensation, or raising prices. All of those options spell trouble for California’s economy — and that of the rest of the nation.
Bloomberg also reports on the same survey Holtz-Eakin reviews (h/t DogSoldier):
Video: Large companies will get hit with 9% increase in health costs under ObamaCare
Share25<script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script>
posted at 3:35 pm on August 18, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
<small> printer-friendly </small>
Douglas Holtz-Eakin discusses a new survey on the impact of ObamaCare on large companies in this clip from Fox News. This survey of employers with five thousand employees shows that executives are planning for a sharp increase in health-care costs, mainly from new mandates in ObamaCare and the lack of control over the actual costs in providing health care. Those costs will get passed to employees in part, but it’s also likely to reduce their impulse to expand jobs in the next couple of years. The former CBO director also predicts that companies will look at shedding their retiree coverage programs, as predicted during the ObamaCare debate — and will end up pushing more people onto Medicare and Medicaid:
<script src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4314131&w=466&h=263" type="text/javascript"></script><iframe src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4314131&w=466&h=263" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" width="466" frameborder="0" height="263" scrolling="no"></iframe><noscript>Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com</noscript>
Some of these costs were expected, but Democrats argued that the tax breaks in the plan would offset the damage, especially for smaller businesses. The Orange County Register reports on another analysis of the bill that determined that less than half the number of small businesses predicted by ObamaCare advocates will actually qualify:
Bloomberg also reports on the same survey Holtz-Eakin reviews (h/t DogSoldier):
brucefan
EOG Dedicated
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Its very difficult for me to decide where to post, here, or under one of the Obama lies threads
Tricky, but I am making the call here just to keep the volume down slightly in the LIE threads
Please go with me on this and try to keep up 12io4j2w90
Dems retreat on health care cost pitch
Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stressing a promise to "improve it.":doh1
Dems retreat on health care cost pitch : New Patriot Journal
Its very difficult for me to decide where to post, here, or under one of the Obama lies threads
Tricky, but I am making the call here just to keep the volume down slightly in the LIE threads
Please go with me on this and try to keep up 12io4j2w90
Dems retreat on health care cost pitch
Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stressing a promise to "improve it.":doh1
Dems retreat on health care cost pitch : New Patriot Journal
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Obamacare is even worse than critics thought
Examiner Editorial
September 22, 2010
Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:
? Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.
? As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.
? Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.
? Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.
? Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.
? Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.
? Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.
? Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.
If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.
Obamacare is even worse than critics thought
Examiner Editorial
September 22, 2010
Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:
? Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.
? As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.
? Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.
? Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.
? Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.
? Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.
? Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.
? Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.
If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Yep!!Our contract expires in March and the company has already told the union we are going to be paying 12% more for our insurance!!It is either that or they will drop the coverage and pay the fine which would be cheaper and make us go in pools and get our own.
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Hey, let’s repeal parts of ObamaCare, says … Democratic Senate nominee from West Virginia
posted at 4:55 pm on September 27, 2010 by Allahpundit
<small>printer-friendly </small>
It’s Joe Manchin, a.k.a. the extremely popular governor of West Virginia, a.k.a. the man who was supposed to waltz to victory as Byrd’s replacement but now trails, a.k.a. the candidate who could implode at any moment if that federal probe of his office turns up a smoking gun. At last check, Obama’s approval rating in West Virginia was … 30/64, a ball and chain around Manchin’s ankles that he’s frantic to somehow wriggle loose from over the next five weeks.
And so, my friends, it’s come to this.He’d also like you to know that he sympathizes with the tea party, ahem.
Two things here. One: A chief liberal line of attack against O-Care skeptics is that they want to order a la carte on health care, preserving the popular provisions (like the ban on denying coverage for preexisting conditions) and getting rid of the unpopular ones, i.e. the individual mandate. According to O-Care supporters, there’s no way to do that and make it economically feasible; you need to take the bitter of the mandate to enjoy the sweet of expanded coverage so that insurance companies have more revenue available to cover people they wouldn’t have covered before. I’d be mighty curious to hear Manchin’s response to that. Does he have some sort of actual “drop the bad, keep the good” health-care solution in mind or is he just saying whatever he needs to say here to distance himself from Obama while sounding reasonable? I know which way I’m betting! Two: Consider this the final pathetic destruction of the lefty talking points earlier this year that (a) O-Care simply had to be passed in order to motivate Democrats to turn out in November and (b) that early public opposition would quickly soften and turn into support as people warmed up to the new reality. Bill Clinton’s already confessed his grievous error on the latter point and now here we have Manchin, arguably the most popular Democratic governor in America, eating a giant shinola sandwich on the former. Amazing.
First, Pomeroy’s Bush ad, now this. Exit question: How soon before we see the first Democratic ad of the cycle praising Reagan?
Over/under is one week.
Hey, let’s repeal parts of ObamaCare, says … Democratic Senate nominee from West Virginia
posted at 4:55 pm on September 27, 2010 by Allahpundit
<small>printer-friendly </small>
It’s Joe Manchin, a.k.a. the extremely popular governor of West Virginia, a.k.a. the man who was supposed to waltz to victory as Byrd’s replacement but now trails, a.k.a. the candidate who could implode at any moment if that federal probe of his office turns up a smoking gun. At last check, Obama’s approval rating in West Virginia was … 30/64, a ball and chain around Manchin’s ankles that he’s frantic to somehow wriggle loose from over the next five weeks.
And so, my friends, it’s come to this.
Two things here. One: A chief liberal line of attack against O-Care skeptics is that they want to order a la carte on health care, preserving the popular provisions (like the ban on denying coverage for preexisting conditions) and getting rid of the unpopular ones, i.e. the individual mandate. According to O-Care supporters, there’s no way to do that and make it economically feasible; you need to take the bitter of the mandate to enjoy the sweet of expanded coverage so that insurance companies have more revenue available to cover people they wouldn’t have covered before. I’d be mighty curious to hear Manchin’s response to that. Does he have some sort of actual “drop the bad, keep the good” health-care solution in mind or is he just saying whatever he needs to say here to distance himself from Obama while sounding reasonable? I know which way I’m betting! Two: Consider this the final pathetic destruction of the lefty talking points earlier this year that (a) O-Care simply had to be passed in order to motivate Democrats to turn out in November and (b) that early public opposition would quickly soften and turn into support as people warmed up to the new reality. Bill Clinton’s already confessed his grievous error on the latter point and now here we have Manchin, arguably the most popular Democratic governor in America, eating a giant shinola sandwich on the former. Amazing.
First, Pomeroy’s Bush ad, now this. Exit question: How soon before we see the first Democratic ad of the cycle praising Reagan?
Over/under is one week.
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
McDonald's May Drop Health Plan
By JANET ADAMY
McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.
The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.
Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.
The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.
View Full Image
<cite>Noah Rabinowitz for The Wall Street Journal</cite> McDonald's says the new health law threatens coverage for many workers, like these in Times Square.
While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.
Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.
McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.
Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don't directly help patients.
McDonald's move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings?totaling more than $1 billion?over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.
More recently, insurers have proposed a round of double-digit premium increases and said new coverage mandates in the law are partly to blame. HHS has criticized the proposed increases as unwarranted.
Democrats, looking toward midterm elections in which the health overhaul is an issue, say it already has stopped insurance practices they call abusive, has given rebates to seniors with high out-of-pocket prescription costs and has allowed parents to keep children on their insurance plans until they turn 26.
McDonald's, in a memo to federal officials, said "it would be economically prohibitive for our carrier to continue offering" the mini-med plan unless it got an exemption from the requirement to spend 80% to 85% of premiums on benefits. Officials said McDonald's would probably have to hit the 85% figure, which applies to larger group plans. Its insurer, BCS Insurance Group of Oak Brook Terrace, Ill., declined to comment.
McDonald's didn't disclose what the plan's current medical loss ratio was.
The issue of limited-benefit plans has also hit colleges, which face the same 80-to-85% requirement beginning next year.
"Having to drop our current mini-med offering would represent a huge disruption to our 29,500 participants," said McDonald's memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "It would deny our people this current benefit that positively impacts their lives and protects their health?and would leave many without an affordable, comparably designed alternative until 2014."
The health law expands Medicaid and offers large subsidies to lower-income people to buy coverage, but those provisions don't kick in until 2014.
Federal officials say there's no guarantee they can grant mini-med carriers a waiver. They say the answer may not come by November, when many employers require employees to sign up for the coming year's benefits.
The government is waiting for the association of state insurance commissioners to draft recommendations. The head of the association's health-insurance committee, Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, said she doesn't think these types of mini-med plans deserve an exemption.
"If they are sold as comprehensive coverage, we expect them to meet the same [medical-loss ratio] standards as other health plans," she said.
Without Coverage
Some options for low-wage workers if they don't get health insurance on the job
Under current system:
Insurers say dozens of other employers could find themselves in the same situation as McDonald's. Aetna Inc., one of the largest sellers of mini-med plans, provides the plans to Home Depot Inc., Disney Worldwide Services, CVS Caremark Corp., Staples Inc. and Blockbuster Inc., among others, according to an Aetna client list obtained by the Journal. Aetna also covers AmeriCorps teaching-program sponsors, who are required by law to make health coverage available.
Aetna declined to comment; it has previously indicated that the requirement could hurt its limited benefit plans.
"There is not any issuer of limited benefit coverage that could meet the enhanced MLR standards," said Neil Trautwein, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, using the abbreviation for medical loss ratio.
A spokeswoman for McDonald's said it would look for other insurance options if it couldn't get the waiver. The company's chief people officer for the U.S., Steve Russell, said, "McDonald's will continue to be committed to providing competitive pay and benefits."
The chain has offered a limited benefits plan for more than 10 years. The current version provides outpatient, inpatient, preventive-care and prescription-drug coverage. McDonald's says 85% of participants have less than $5,000 in medical expenses a year.
The new rules at issue apply only to fully insured health plans and not those where the employer absorbs the risk and directly pays out medical claims. The rules wouldn't affect Wal-Mart Stores Inc., for instance, because it is self-insured.
Benefit consultants anticipate that, by 2014, most employers will stop offering mini-med plans. Such plans likely wouldn't meet the definition of adequate coverage for full-time workers. Under the law, midsize and large employers that fail to offer such coverage will have to pay a fine.
Until 2014, workers on mini-med plans would have few affordable alternatives for coverage. According to a survey by the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, workers without health insurance were three times as likely to visit the emergency room without being able to pay as their counterparts with health insurance.
"The packages maybe could be better, but for a start, they're quite good," said Jerry Newman, a professor at State University of New York at Buffalo, who worked under cover at McDonald's to write "My Secret Life on the McJob." He added: "For those who didn't have health insurance through their spouse, it was a life saver."
Write to Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com
McDonald's May Drop Health Plan
By JANET ADAMY
McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.
The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.
Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.
The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.
View Full Image
<cite>Noah Rabinowitz for The Wall Street Journal</cite> McDonald's says the new health law threatens coverage for many workers, like these in Times Square.
While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.
Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.
McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.
Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don't directly help patients.
McDonald's move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings?totaling more than $1 billion?over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.
More recently, insurers have proposed a round of double-digit premium increases and said new coverage mandates in the law are partly to blame. HHS has criticized the proposed increases as unwarranted.
Democrats, looking toward midterm elections in which the health overhaul is an issue, say it already has stopped insurance practices they call abusive, has given rebates to seniors with high out-of-pocket prescription costs and has allowed parents to keep children on their insurance plans until they turn 26.
McDonald's, in a memo to federal officials, said "it would be economically prohibitive for our carrier to continue offering" the mini-med plan unless it got an exemption from the requirement to spend 80% to 85% of premiums on benefits. Officials said McDonald's would probably have to hit the 85% figure, which applies to larger group plans. Its insurer, BCS Insurance Group of Oak Brook Terrace, Ill., declined to comment.
McDonald's didn't disclose what the plan's current medical loss ratio was.
The issue of limited-benefit plans has also hit colleges, which face the same 80-to-85% requirement beginning next year.
"Having to drop our current mini-med offering would represent a huge disruption to our 29,500 participants," said McDonald's memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "It would deny our people this current benefit that positively impacts their lives and protects their health?and would leave many without an affordable, comparably designed alternative until 2014."
The health law expands Medicaid and offers large subsidies to lower-income people to buy coverage, but those provisions don't kick in until 2014.
Federal officials say there's no guarantee they can grant mini-med carriers a waiver. They say the answer may not come by November, when many employers require employees to sign up for the coming year's benefits.
The government is waiting for the association of state insurance commissioners to draft recommendations. The head of the association's health-insurance committee, Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, said she doesn't think these types of mini-med plans deserve an exemption.
"If they are sold as comprehensive coverage, we expect them to meet the same [medical-loss ratio] standards as other health plans," she said.
Without Coverage
Some options for low-wage workers if they don't get health insurance on the job
Under current system:
- May be eligible for Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor, especially families with children
- Can purchase private insurance on individual market, but premiums are likely to be too costly n Hospital emergency rooms must treat all comers without regard to ability to pay.
- Some 1,200 federally funded community health centers offer low-cost basic care.
- Everyone with income up to 133% of federal poverty level will be eligible for Medicaid. (Poverty level for individual is $10,830 in 2010.)
- People with income between 133% and 400% of poverty level will be eligible for subsidized health insurance. Premiums are capped at 2% of income for those at the lowest end of that scale and 9.5% of income at the highest end.
- Additional $11 billion spent on community health centers
Insurers say dozens of other employers could find themselves in the same situation as McDonald's. Aetna Inc., one of the largest sellers of mini-med plans, provides the plans to Home Depot Inc., Disney Worldwide Services, CVS Caremark Corp., Staples Inc. and Blockbuster Inc., among others, according to an Aetna client list obtained by the Journal. Aetna also covers AmeriCorps teaching-program sponsors, who are required by law to make health coverage available.
Aetna declined to comment; it has previously indicated that the requirement could hurt its limited benefit plans.
"There is not any issuer of limited benefit coverage that could meet the enhanced MLR standards," said Neil Trautwein, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, using the abbreviation for medical loss ratio.
A spokeswoman for McDonald's said it would look for other insurance options if it couldn't get the waiver. The company's chief people officer for the U.S., Steve Russell, said, "McDonald's will continue to be committed to providing competitive pay and benefits."
The chain has offered a limited benefits plan for more than 10 years. The current version provides outpatient, inpatient, preventive-care and prescription-drug coverage. McDonald's says 85% of participants have less than $5,000 in medical expenses a year.
The new rules at issue apply only to fully insured health plans and not those where the employer absorbs the risk and directly pays out medical claims. The rules wouldn't affect Wal-Mart Stores Inc., for instance, because it is self-insured.
Benefit consultants anticipate that, by 2014, most employers will stop offering mini-med plans. Such plans likely wouldn't meet the definition of adequate coverage for full-time workers. Under the law, midsize and large employers that fail to offer such coverage will have to pay a fine.
Until 2014, workers on mini-med plans would have few affordable alternatives for coverage. According to a survey by the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, workers without health insurance were three times as likely to visit the emergency room without being able to pay as their counterparts with health insurance.
"The packages maybe could be better, but for a start, they're quite good," said Jerry Newman, a professor at State University of New York at Buffalo, who worked under cover at McDonald's to write "My Secret Life on the McJob." He added: "For those who didn't have health insurance through their spouse, it was a life saver."
Write to Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Tea Party, Allies Demand GOP Work Toward ObamaCare's End
By DAVID HOGBERG, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 10/04/2010 07:29 PM ET
Protesters rally against President Obama's health care proposal in Grand Junction, Colo., on Aug. 15, 2009. Some Tea Party activists are warning of... View Enlarged Image
If the Republicans win one or both chambers of Congress in November, they will be under intense pressure from conservative and Tea Party groups to move forward on repealing ObamaCare.
"The grass-roots and the Tea Party movement want full repeal," said Andy Roth, vice president of Club For Growth. "If that cannot be done, they could be assuaged if Republicans in Congress are seen as actively picking away at it."
Club For Growth was the first group to advance a pledge to repeal ObamaCare for candidates to sign. Thus far, 76 lawmakers and 357 candidates have signed it.
Several other conservative organization have put out similar calls.
DefundIt.org, part of the Restore the Dream Foundation, is pushing lawmakers to erase the money for ObamaCare in appropriations bill.
Some activists are warning of full-scale revolt if the GOP doesn't make a serious effort.
"The Virginia and American Conservative Parties would do very well if the GOP does not make a serious effort to repeal ObamaCare," said Butch Porter, chairman of both parties. "I hope I don't have to say 'I told you so' to Republicans when people start running to third parties."
Every Bit Helps
Others are trying to make certain that Republicans don't find ways to dodge the issue. "I was frustrated that the health care issue was not more of an issue ? it should be in a lot of campaigns where it isn't," said Heather Higgins, CEO of the Independent Women's Voice, a conservative group. "Other pledges out there seemed rather narrow. They didn't apply to the bits-and-pieces, incremental approach that would be necessary in the interim."
The IWV pledge commits candidates and members who sign it to vote for full repeal and for legislation that kills ObamaCare provisions such as the tax hikes and the individual mandate to buy insurance. Thus far, 52 members and candidates have signed it.
The House seems the likeliest to vote on full repeal of ObamaCare, should the GOP win a majority come November.
"Republicans are committed to repealing the health care law," said Sage Eastman, spokesman for Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. "And a growing number of Democrats are joining that cause."
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has introduced a bill to repeal ObamaCare that Democrats have bottled up in committee. The conservative Heritage Foundation has asked members to sign a discharge petition that would move it to the floor if a majority of House lawmakers sign.
Tea Party, Allies Demand GOP Work Toward ObamaCare's End
By DAVID HOGBERG, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 10/04/2010 07:29 PM ET
Protesters rally against President Obama's health care proposal in Grand Junction, Colo., on Aug. 15, 2009. Some Tea Party activists are warning of... View Enlarged ImageIf the Republicans win one or both chambers of Congress in November, they will be under intense pressure from conservative and Tea Party groups to move forward on repealing ObamaCare.
"The grass-roots and the Tea Party movement want full repeal," said Andy Roth, vice president of Club For Growth. "If that cannot be done, they could be assuaged if Republicans in Congress are seen as actively picking away at it."
Club For Growth was the first group to advance a pledge to repeal ObamaCare for candidates to sign. Thus far, 76 lawmakers and 357 candidates have signed it.
Several other conservative organization have put out similar calls.
DefundIt.org, part of the Restore the Dream Foundation, is pushing lawmakers to erase the money for ObamaCare in appropriations bill.
Some activists are warning of full-scale revolt if the GOP doesn't make a serious effort.
"The Virginia and American Conservative Parties would do very well if the GOP does not make a serious effort to repeal ObamaCare," said Butch Porter, chairman of both parties. "I hope I don't have to say 'I told you so' to Republicans when people start running to third parties."
Every Bit Helps
Others are trying to make certain that Republicans don't find ways to dodge the issue. "I was frustrated that the health care issue was not more of an issue ? it should be in a lot of campaigns where it isn't," said Heather Higgins, CEO of the Independent Women's Voice, a conservative group. "Other pledges out there seemed rather narrow. They didn't apply to the bits-and-pieces, incremental approach that would be necessary in the interim."
The IWV pledge commits candidates and members who sign it to vote for full repeal and for legislation that kills ObamaCare provisions such as the tax hikes and the individual mandate to buy insurance. Thus far, 52 members and candidates have signed it.
The House seems the likeliest to vote on full repeal of ObamaCare, should the GOP win a majority come November.
"Republicans are committed to repealing the health care law," said Sage Eastman, spokesman for Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. "And a growing number of Democrats are joining that cause."
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has introduced a bill to repeal ObamaCare that Democrats have bottled up in committee. The conservative Heritage Foundation has asked members to sign a discharge petition that would move it to the floor if a majority of House lawmakers sign.
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Thank you, Obamacare: Our premiums are going up 45%
posted at 8:18 pm on October 20, 2010 by Pundette
<small> [ Healthcare ] printer-friendly </small>
Just got this note from my husband:That Obamacare is pretty awesome, isn?t it? How irrational of us not to be grateful to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and company for shoving this down our unwilling throats. I guess we?re just not thinking clearly.
Leave a comment if you?ve gotten news similar to ours. Or worse, like JACG, whose policy is now illegal:Obama lied, her coverage died.
Cross-posted at P&P.
Thank you, Obamacare: Our premiums are going up 45%
posted at 8:18 pm on October 20, 2010 by Pundette
<small> [ Healthcare ] printer-friendly </small>
Just got this note from my husband:
Leave a comment if you?ve gotten news similar to ours. Or worse, like JACG, whose policy is now illegal:
Cross-posted at P&P.
brucefan
EOG Dedicated
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
This is why the only Republican I trust to actually do what they say they will do is Ron Paul. Never, ever, waivers from his positions, like it or not
High-Ranking Republican Speaks Against Health Care Repeal
WASHINGTON, DC ? During an appearance on Fox Business Monday night, outgoing New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg mentioned that he thought repealing the health care law would be the wrong tack for Republicans to take. "I don't think starving or repeal is probably the best approach here," said Gregg. "You basically go in and restructure it." The GOP has taken a hard line against the health care law, so it's notable that Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee is advising against blocking or nullifying the legislation entirely. 2938u4ji23
This is why the only Republican I trust to actually do what they say they will do is Ron Paul. Never, ever, waivers from his positions, like it or not
High-Ranking Republican Speaks Against Health Care Repeal
WASHINGTON, DC ? During an appearance on Fox Business Monday night, outgoing New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg mentioned that he thought repealing the health care law would be the wrong tack for Republicans to take. "I don't think starving or repeal is probably the best approach here," said Gregg. "You basically go in and restructure it." The GOP has taken a hard line against the health care law, so it's notable that Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee is advising against blocking or nullifying the legislation entirely. 2938u4ji23
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
I think allowing the franchise's fate to rest in the hands of any politician(s) is exactly what the Founders set out to avoid. Certainly, there are some good ones who stand by their principles but they are few and far between. Jim DeMint, Tom Price, Steve King, Mike Pence, are a few good ones that come to mind -- with a lot more on the way.
That said, the real patriots and agents for change and reform aren't in Washington DC. The Tea Parties will make life quite uncomfortable for Republicans if they get soft and revert to their old go-along-to-get-along ways.
Those days are over.
The growing Tea Party movement (not the GOP) is the biggest threat to the progressive establishment, and they damn well know it.
I think allowing the franchise's fate to rest in the hands of any politician(s) is exactly what the Founders set out to avoid. Certainly, there are some good ones who stand by their principles but they are few and far between. Jim DeMint, Tom Price, Steve King, Mike Pence, are a few good ones that come to mind -- with a lot more on the way.
That said, the real patriots and agents for change and reform aren't in Washington DC. The Tea Parties will make life quite uncomfortable for Republicans if they get soft and revert to their old go-along-to-get-along ways.
Those days are over.
The growing Tea Party movement (not the GOP) is the biggest threat to the progressive establishment, and they damn well know it.
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Dick Armey says the first order of business in the new GOP Congress should be a straight up or down vote to repeal Obamacare. :houra
Dick Armey says the first order of business in the new GOP Congress should be a straight up or down vote to repeal Obamacare. :houra
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Obama White House Hands Out 111 Obamacare Waivers- Hides It on Website
<object height="385" width="480">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/96Uu_tI0hTw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>
Obama White House Hands Out 111 Obamacare Waivers- Hides It on Website
<object height="385" width="480">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/96Uu_tI0hTw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
ObamaCare waivers now up to 222
posted at 2:55 pm on December 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey <small> </small>
If the US passes a law that then requires the government to issue over two hundred waivers in the first few months to avoid disastrous consequences for enforcement, doesn?t that indicate a problem in the law itself? That question should be foremost on voters? minds as the number of waivers to ObamaCare issued by the Obama administration soars to 222:Waffle House. How appropriate! The Obama White House demanded a series of federal mandates that it claimed would protect Americans without damaging business, and now the administration is waffling on its own mandates.
The Boss Emeritus has been on the case of the waivers for weeks, and now calls this Waiver-Mania. Why has this fever struck the administration? Its own mandates would force these companies to drop coverage entirely for part-time and low-wage workers under full enforcement ? hurting the very people Obama claimed to be helping with his takeover of the health-care industry. The use of ?mini-med? coverage allowed employers to offer limited benefits to low-wage employees that they couldn?t afford on their own, and for which taxpayers didn?t provide subsidies. ObamaCare and its coverage mandates would eliminate that coverage by design and force those employees onto Medicaid, greatly increasing the cost of ObamaCare and reducing their ability to get private coverage instead.
This is basically a finger-in-the-dyke approach to oncoming disaster. Any such waivers means that the government is no longer enforcing the rule of law but the rule of whim, choosing winners and losers in a totally inappropriate manner. Issuing 222 waivers (for now!) demonstrates that the law is unworkable and needs to be repealed.
:doh1
ObamaCare waivers now up to 222
posted at 2:55 pm on December 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey <small> </small>
If the US passes a law that then requires the government to issue over two hundred waivers in the first few months to avoid disastrous consequences for enforcement, doesn?t that indicate a problem in the law itself? That question should be foremost on voters? minds as the number of waivers to ObamaCare issued by the Obama administration soars to 222:
The Boss Emeritus has been on the case of the waivers for weeks, and now calls this Waiver-Mania. Why has this fever struck the administration? Its own mandates would force these companies to drop coverage entirely for part-time and low-wage workers under full enforcement ? hurting the very people Obama claimed to be helping with his takeover of the health-care industry. The use of ?mini-med? coverage allowed employers to offer limited benefits to low-wage employees that they couldn?t afford on their own, and for which taxpayers didn?t provide subsidies. ObamaCare and its coverage mandates would eliminate that coverage by design and force those employees onto Medicaid, greatly increasing the cost of ObamaCare and reducing their ability to get private coverage instead.
This is basically a finger-in-the-dyke approach to oncoming disaster. Any such waivers means that the government is no longer enforcing the rule of law but the rule of whim, choosing winners and losers in a totally inappropriate manner. Issuing 222 waivers (for now!) demonstrates that the law is unworkable and needs to be repealed.
:doh1
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
Health Problem Quantified
Filed in Health Alerts on January 5, 2011 with 43 comments
We now know how many people have the problem most often cited as the reason for last years? health overhaul legislation. Answer: 8,000
No, that?s not a misprint. Out of 310 million Americans, only 8,000 people have the problem given as the principal reason for spending almost $1 trillion, creating more than 150 regulatory agencies and causing perhaps 150 million or more people to change the coverage they now have. :doh1 2348ji23e
Alert readers will remember the White House summer of 2009 invitation to all Americans to send in their horror stories describing health insurance industry abuses. Although the complaints were many, the vast majority were about pre-existing condition limitations. Then, on the eve of the ObamaCare vote, every member of Congress who appeared on television to defend the legislation was able to cite by name an individual or family in his or her state or Congressional district with a heart wrenching story.
Gone was any interest in ?universal coverage? or ?insuring the uninsured? or ?helping poor people get health care.? The case for change was focused almost exclusively on protecting the middle class from miserly insurance companies.
I know I keep you amused
Although the most important parts of ObamaCare (the individual mandate, subsidies, employer fines, etc.) do not kick in until 2014, the legislation made interim provision for those with pre-existing conditions problems. A new kind of risk pool is open to anyone who is denied insurance in the private sector and it?s available for the same premiums healthy people pay. Twenty-three states are operating their own risk pools and 27 are relying on a federal plan.
It?s been like giving a party to which no one comes. The Medicare program chief actuary predicted last spring that 375,000 would sign up for the new risk pool insurance in 2010. But by the end of November, only 8,000 had done so. As Amy Goldstein reports in The Washington Post, this includes 75 in Virginia, 80 in New Hampshire, 97 in Maryland and a whopping 700 in North Carolina.
While a lot of people are surprised by these numbers, I am not. Here is why. Don?t you think it is a bit odd for the White House to send out an appeal to victims so they can identify themselves? That?s not normally how the political system works.
The more usual scenario is: victims unite and form interest groups; they lobby Congress, write letters, testify, etc; and eventually the pressure become so great that Congress legislates.
When have you ever heard of that entire process in reverse? When has Congress ever before decided it wants to do something and then conducted a nationwide search to find people who will benefit?
The reasons for the reversal is that this whole problem has been completely hyped and exaggerated from the get go. In this country we have made it increasingly easy for people to get health insurance after they get sick. Going to work for an employer with generous health benefits, for example, is the most direct way.
Of course that system will miss people who are too sick to work. And that may explain why the few who are signing up appear to have very high medical expenses. Even though they have less than 1/40<sup>th</sup> of the expected enrollment, the plans are already running out of the money.
Meanwhile, as I?ve said before, the beneficiaries of reform are few, scattered and largely invisible.The cost of reform is falling on people who are numerous, somewhat organized and very vocal. That is why I think the prospects for reform of the reform are quite good.
Health Problem Quantified
Filed in Health Alerts on January 5, 2011 with 43 comments
We now know how many people have the problem most often cited as the reason for last years? health overhaul legislation. Answer: 8,000
No, that?s not a misprint. Out of 310 million Americans, only 8,000 people have the problem given as the principal reason for spending almost $1 trillion, creating more than 150 regulatory agencies and causing perhaps 150 million or more people to change the coverage they now have. :doh1 2348ji23e
Alert readers will remember the White House summer of 2009 invitation to all Americans to send in their horror stories describing health insurance industry abuses. Although the complaints were many, the vast majority were about pre-existing condition limitations. Then, on the eve of the ObamaCare vote, every member of Congress who appeared on television to defend the legislation was able to cite by name an individual or family in his or her state or Congressional district with a heart wrenching story.
Gone was any interest in ?universal coverage? or ?insuring the uninsured? or ?helping poor people get health care.? The case for change was focused almost exclusively on protecting the middle class from miserly insurance companies.
I know I keep you amused
but I feel I?m being used
Although the most important parts of ObamaCare (the individual mandate, subsidies, employer fines, etc.) do not kick in until 2014, the legislation made interim provision for those with pre-existing conditions problems. A new kind of risk pool is open to anyone who is denied insurance in the private sector and it?s available for the same premiums healthy people pay. Twenty-three states are operating their own risk pools and 27 are relying on a federal plan.
It?s been like giving a party to which no one comes. The Medicare program chief actuary predicted last spring that 375,000 would sign up for the new risk pool insurance in 2010. But by the end of November, only 8,000 had done so. As Amy Goldstein reports in The Washington Post, this includes 75 in Virginia, 80 in New Hampshire, 97 in Maryland and a whopping 700 in North Carolina.
While a lot of people are surprised by these numbers, I am not. Here is why. Don?t you think it is a bit odd for the White House to send out an appeal to victims so they can identify themselves? That?s not normally how the political system works.
The more usual scenario is: victims unite and form interest groups; they lobby Congress, write letters, testify, etc; and eventually the pressure become so great that Congress legislates.
When have you ever heard of that entire process in reverse? When has Congress ever before decided it wants to do something and then conducted a nationwide search to find people who will benefit?
The reasons for the reversal is that this whole problem has been completely hyped and exaggerated from the get go. In this country we have made it increasingly easy for people to get health insurance after they get sick. Going to work for an employer with generous health benefits, for example, is the most direct way.
Of course that system will miss people who are too sick to work. And that may explain why the few who are signing up appear to have very high medical expenses. Even though they have less than 1/40<sup>th</sup> of the expected enrollment, the plans are already running out of the money.
Meanwhile, as I?ve said before, the beneficiaries of reform are few, scattered and largely invisible.The cost of reform is falling on people who are numerous, somewhat organized and very vocal. That is why I think the prospects for reform of the reform are quite good.
scrimmage
What you contemplate you imitate
Re: A Vision Of Obamacare
The Healthcare Racket exists for a reason,as it benefits those who're riding the gravy train,a more efficient system would step on some toes,but provide better care for those who need it,finding the sweet spot's the problem.
The Healthcare Racket exists for a reason,as it benefits those who're riding the gravy train,a more efficient system would step on some toes,but provide better care for those who need it,finding the sweet spot's the problem.