Author Topic: Bottom Line on Obamacare  (Read 11033 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #75 on: July 06, 2012, 06:02:30 AM »
Yes its a tax
Both need to move on from this bullshit.   
The issue is the economy, period.   Obama is perfectly ok w this country deep sixing itself under his agenda. 

Maybe the jobs numbers will give mittens the ability to finally take a position about antyhing.

he's scared to piss off anyone.  Here's the prob 33- -Romeny WILL NOT tell us what he'll cut.  He flirted with saying "hell yes, I will cut teachers, firefighters and police" then instead of sticking with it - reverted to "but but but states do that" - neglecting the fact they use federal dollars to do it.

Romney WOULD do well today with the numbers - IF he had a plan other than "Obama is bad and I'll be better, but I can't say how"

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #76 on: July 06, 2012, 06:05:45 AM »
Maybe the jobs numbers will give mittens the ability to finally take a position about antyhing.

he's scared to piss off anyone.  Here's the prob 33- -Romeny WILL NOT tell us what he'll cut.  He flirted with saying "hell yes, I will cut teachers, firefighters and police" then instead of sticking with it - reverted to "but but but states do that" - neglecting the fact they use federal dollars to do it.

Romney WOULD do well today with the numbers - IF he had a plan other than "Obama is bad and I'll be better, but I can't say how"


I already said Myth is a pussy and is horrible.  What more do you want?  I'm A B O - it is what it is. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #77 on: July 06, 2012, 06:09:49 AM »
Why Obamacare is Bad for America
by Marc Gindin
July 5, 2012

 



 
Admit it. You have an acquaintance, a coworker, maybe even a -- gulp -- friend equivocal about, or even in support of, Obamacare because it gets health insurance to more people. Maybe you've argued about this at length in the past, both of you agreeing to disagree but you, in your own mind, wondering what more you could have said to make your point that Obamacare is bad for the country. Good news: you've stumbled on to the right article.

We now lay out the case that Obamacare is bad for America. There's nothing complicated or twisted about this argument; in fact, these issues are quite obvious.

So why is Obamacare bad policy? Well, first, Obamacare is bad for America because a majority of people don't want it. Support for repeal, according to months of polling data by Rasmussen Reports consistently holds between 51 and 60 percent of Americans, an incredible level of opposition for a federal law. The oft-repeated line that Obamacare was rammed down the throats of Americans is true -- because a majority pressured their representatives to vote against it. No law with such a weak level of support gets off the ground on very solid footing.

So the fact that such a comprehensive overhaul like Obamacare is so unpopular makes it bad policy on its face. But perhaps your acquaintance believes that government was ahead of the curve here, knowing it had to do something to address the growing health care crisis? Not so much -- because the crisis is one largely of the government's own making. It was government, after all, that passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986 that forces hospitals to provide care for anyone, anytime without regard to citizenship, legal residence, or ability to pay. Sounds compassionate, right? For free-riders it is. For everyone else it's VERY expensive, for as more and more people, especially lower income folks and illegal aliens, utilize emergency rooms as their primary care providers and do not pay for services, hospitals try to find some of that money through higher and higher costs pushed onto those who DO pay -- including individuals and insurance companies. What's the fix? Get the government out of hospital care mandates and let emergency rooms cater to those who CAN pay -- either because they have the means or because they have insurance. Stop forcing hospitals to offer precious man hours and resources to freeloaders.

But EMTALA isn't the only government mandate that has made health insurance more expensive. The health insurance industry is so heavily regulated that states -- and now the federal government -- decide exactly what insurance polices must cover, how much to cover, where customers must reside to purchase coverage, and who else in the customer's family must be eligible to piggyback on that coverage. As a health insurance consumer, an individual has very little choice now regarding who to buy insurance from or what type of insurance to buy. Perhaps a younger, healthier adult would prefer to buy a cheaper catastrophic plan that covers the bigger, yet less likely events, choosing to pay for smaller expenses like doctor visits and basic lab work out of pocket. Obamacare bars this. Perhaps a consumer in Pennsylvania likes a plan offered by an insurance company in Ohio and would like to purchase that policy. Obamacare does nothing to permit insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. Perhaps an individual just wants to disconnect from the system, not carry insurance, and pay for medical care completely out of pocket because he has the means. Obamacare bars this as well (unless one pays the penalty/fine/tax, that is). So with fewer companies selling insurance with fewer choices, the market breeds far less competition, and prices rise. Think about that local cable company that owns a near-monopoly on television signals in many areas around the country -- and how expensive those monthly bills are. So what's the fix here? Get the government out of the market and allow insurance companies to sell insurance in all 50 states with the coverage types and levels people want.

But your acquaintance has one final concern: the uninsured. These are the folks with pre-existing conditions who private insurance companies consider bad risks, folks who often can't get a private insurance policy or can't get one that isn't prohibitively expensive. What are those unlucky folks to do in a country without EMTALA, without a guaranteed insurance plan? Some may have savings. Others can take jobs with health benefits. Still others might lean on family, friends, their religious institutions, or programs in their neighborhoods and towns for financial support. And in the most dire of circumstances, there is no prohibition on states from creating health benefits for their highest risk, least insurable citizens with the consent of the taxpayers of the states. In the end, many states might do this -- some might not. But in a country of 50 sovereign, competing states, someone who is desperate, someone needing a certain level of state-provided or state-subsidized health benefit can look to every state for the best option and move to the one that will help the most without being trapped by Obamacare, which may or may not be designed to help.

The real question for your acquaintance, your friend, your coworker, your business partner, your mother -- whoever -- is that if government has created the health care crisis by forcing prices upward through its own destructive policies, how on Earth is it feasible that Obamacare will fix the problem instead of compounding it? The real solution is to unwind decades of federal interference in health care: repeal EMTALA, free the health insurance markets and allow insurance companies to compete against one another, and free people who really do need help to get it from the most local of sources first -- friends, family, charitable folks, and folks in their communities. With this approach America preserves a top-notch health care system that works for almost everyone while controlling costs and providing the services people want. That, in the end, is a win for everyone.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #78 on: July 06, 2012, 08:19:55 AM »
Andre - like the rest of the 95ers are blind sheep to this con man.   they would accept a life of slavery in chains under the whip for this creep if he asked them to do so.  Obama has done nothing but shit on blacks for 4 years and they still worship this fraud, its pathetic. 

I saw one stupid ass Jamaican in the DD this morning with one of those early 90's Africa pendants and an Obama shirt that said "Myobama" and listed a punch of delusional shit like you see w Kwanza and shit like that. 

I just shook my head in disgust. 

 



unfortunately YOU are the only slave to Obama,.,,you talk about him incessantly and bring him up even in threads that have nothing to do with him.....expect a knock on your door soon by the secret service as the election grows near....I'm sure they already have an eye on you

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #79 on: July 07, 2012, 03:48:55 AM »
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

HSA's Targeted by Obama
Red State ^ | 7/6/12 | Darling
Posted on July 6, 2012 10:42:29 PM EDT by 54fighting

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are an oasis in the desert of government-run health care. That is why President Obama’s health care bureaucrats are intent on killing HSAs.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal piece by 2021, health care spending will be almost one fifth of the whole U.S. economy. In nine years, the government share will be about half.

By 2021, health-care spending is likely to be nearly a fifth of the U.S. economy, at 19.6% of gross domestic product, up from 17.9%, or roughly a sixth, in 2010. The government share of the spending also would be greater, at nearly 50%, up from 46%, mostly because of the anticipated growth in Medicare enrollment.

The government is projected to spend more on health care than the private sector. That is a degree of socialism that is accelerating under ObamaCare and will cause the health care providers to be less responsive to consumers.

HSAs are a force for good in health care markets and have been a positive element of the market since their creation in 2003. An HSA is an account that individuals can set up to earn tax free health care funds on an annual basis. They have been increasing in use since the day they were created.

The idea behind these private accounts is to empower the consumer to make decisions on how to spend tax exempt dollars. Clearly, the last bastion of free market forces with the existence of HSAs is a threat to government run health care. As a result, government bureaucrats are targeting HSAs for death.

HSAs provide quality medical coverage at the direction of the policyholder — not the government or insurance company bureaucrats. That is why liberals hate them.

HSAs provide power to the consumer to make health care choices. People who have them, love them, because it empowers the consumer to make their own choices.

It should not come as a surprise that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is promulgating regulations that could rip 5 million policies out of the hands of small business plans and individuals. Known as “Medical Loss Ratio,” these new regulations will make it nearly impossible for individuals or small businesses to use HSAs in the ObamaCare health exchanges.

Many states will resist setting up ObamaCare exchanges for fear that the federal government will use these exchanges to control state based health care policy. The battle over full repeal of ObamaCare will be fought into the fall elections, yet the bureaucrats in the Obama Administration will be working overtime to implement a law they hope will not be repealed by the voters this fall.

This crushing of free market HSAs is consistent with the liberal idea of creeping socialism. They will not exterminate the free market in one day, or even one year, but over a long drawn out period of time. The slow creep to socialism is difficult to stop, because it is incremental and done in small steps and by quiet bureaucrats who you will never hear about.

We all known that ObamaCare was built on a foundation of deceit but one promise made by the president was perfectly clear — he said that if you liked your plan and wanted to keep it — you could. Add this to the long list of broken Obama promises. Apparently Obama’s promise to allow you to keep your plan will not extend to HSAs should this new “Medical Loss Ratio” rule be implemented by Obama’s HHS Department.

Now that the Supreme Court has tossed another roadblock in the way of full repeal of ObamaCare, conservatives need to dig in and defend HSAs as one of the few remaining free market ideas left that provides consumers with the power over health care decisions.

Many conservatives understand that ObamaCare was drafted in such a way as to deftly move people out of the private health market and into a government-run system. Individuals and small business HSAs policyholders appear to be the first guinea pig in this experiment.

Congress needs to make sure to play defense on the free market and make sure that HSAs are not the next casualty of government centered health care.


garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #80 on: July 07, 2012, 05:21:20 AM »
This thread is four pages in and I still don't have the bottom line on Obamacare.
G

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #81 on: July 07, 2012, 08:14:58 AM »
This thread is four pages in and I still don't have the bottom line on Obamacare.

you expected to get that from 3333???????? ???

garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #82 on: July 07, 2012, 09:26:38 AM »
you expected to get that from 3333???????? ???
I want coachisright and Fox news links.

I don't know how to work a browser.

My mom gets me to this page.
G

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #83 on: July 07, 2012, 12:34:39 PM »
I want coachisright and Fox news links.

I don't know how to work a browser.

My mom gets me to this page.


your mom is slacking....3333's mom feeds and changes him

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #84 on: July 09, 2012, 03:29:49 AM »
I want coachisright and Fox news links.

I don't know how to work a browser.

My mom gets me to this page.


Bottomline:

We are now a socialist society. Truthtellers/patriots like 33... is now in jail or executed.
There are no doctors anymore they quit to become dustmen.
There is X million people who now have access to health insurance and might actually survive getting sick but they apparently live in the twilight zone so they dont matter

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #85 on: July 09, 2012, 05:00:31 AM »
Jack Mintz: If Obamacare is a tax and not a penalty, Americans could be taxed for not biking.
 National Post>Financial Post ^ | Jack Mintz


Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2012 10:52:52

 

Jack Mintz: If Obamacare is a tax and not a penalty, Americans could be taxed for not biking

Taxing people on what they don’t consume creates a dangerous precedent

Talk about confusion.

First U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts decides that the Obamacare mandate is really a tax. Then the Republicans admonished the Democrats for raising taxes, followed by Democrats’ insistence — to avoid the tax-and-spend epithet — that the health mandate payment is a penalty. Then, of all people, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney sides with the Democrats, since his own Massachusetts plan had a similar levy on the uninsured population. Next, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a VP contender, claims the mandate is both a tax and a penalty.

Great drama, but in the scheme of things, this Supreme Court decision reasserts the power of governments to levy taxes of all sorts, making it very much a political decision. Worse, the decision opens up a new approach to taxing people that sets a dangerous precedent, not only for the United States but for others like Canada.

Under Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, individuals who do not purchase health insurance pay a “shared-responsibility payment,” starting in 2014. For example, by 2016, the payment is 2.5% of individual income, with a minimum of $695 per year and a maximum that is the average yearly premium for insurance that covers 60% of the cost of 10 specified services (expected to be about $4,800). The payment would be reimbursed as part of the income tax remitted by an expected four million U.S. taxpayers.

Even though the act describes the payment as a penalty, Judge Roberts argues that it is not. The shared-responsibility payment is not a punishment for an unlawful act, he reasons. Instead, the payment is based on income and household characteristics, like dependent children, that determine the amount owing. Nothing in the legislation states it is illegal not to buy insurance and non-filers need not pay the tax.

Judge Roberts then contends that the shared-responsibility payment is like any other tax that raises revenue for governments. Like excise taxes and tariffs, the tax is intended to change behaviour — in this case to encourage individuals to buy health insurance, just like tariffs that encourage home-based manufacturing or sales taxes to discourage smoking. The mandate tax cannot be so high as to force all individuals to purchase health insurance — “the power to tax is not the power to destroy.”

For tax-policy eggheads, the question as to what is a tax versus a penalty is pretty exciting stuff. Most citizens look at taxes, fees and penalties as taking money out of their pocketbooks, no matter the name. For governments designing policy and legislation, however, it is crucial to define correctly the type of levy being imposed to make sure legislation is appropriately framed. Advertisement

Governments raise all sorts of taxes and levies to fund public services or change behaviour. Taxes such as income, sales and payroll levies are compulsory payments to the government. Some are “benefit taxes” whereby a payment is made to a compulsory-enrolled social program like social security or health care. Non-tax levies like user charges and royalties are cost-recovery payments for a government service that people may choose or not to purchase. Penalties discourage illegal behaviour.

In the case of Obama’s shared responsibility payment, it could have fallen into one of several categories depending on design.

As a penalty, the Obama levy is not a good example. The penalty is not related to the social cost associated with those not buying insurance, which is the higher premiums that would be set on those purchasing health insurance. If the penalty was set at the household cost of enrolling in a health insurance plan for all (and unrelated to the income tax), it would have been more like a penalty for not buying a plan.

Nor is the shared responsibility payment a good example of a user charge or benefit tax. When an American does not have health insurance, the patient can still obtain subsidized services from community and hospital services often supported by the government. In these circumstances, it could be argued that the payment is used to cover the public cost of these uninsured services. However, the payment is unrelated to these benefits, so it therefore does not qualify as a user fee or benefit tax.

This leaves the shared-responsibility payment to be similar to an excise tax to change behaviour and raise revenue, as Roberts contends. Around the world, governments levy all sorts of excises, such as those on cigarettes and liquor (to discourage smoking and drinking), luxuries, fuel and tariffs on imported goods. What is perhaps troubling about Roberts’ excise-tax argument is that these taxes are intended to discourage particular forms of consumption and indirectly encourage consumption of something else.

But it is hard to think of excise taxes on things we don’t consume. It is therefore difficult to think of taxes similar to the Obamacare mandate payment. This does not mean that the mandate payment is not a tax, since governments can institute taxes in innovative ways.

Roberts did not mention that some people could choose not to buy a regulated health insurance plan if they prefer to self-insure. A person could put some savings aside to fund future health care, just like funding retirement and other individual needs. In effect, the Obama shared-responsibility payment is a tax on not consuming regulated privately provided health insurance in the United States.

More worrisome, this approach to taxation opens up new avenues. For example, governments could impose taxes on firms that do not provide pension plans. They could tax people who choose not to bike to work. Or they could tax people who don’t go to publicly funded universities or colleges.

After the reading the judgment, I do think Roberts is right that the mandate tax is a tax, not a penalty. However, if we start to tax people according to what they don’t consume, an endless number of new taxes could be concocted to promote government priorities. That is a new ball of wax.

Financial Post

Jack M. Mintz is Palmer chair at the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary.



________________________ ________________________ __________________


Bottom line is that the thugs who support ThugCare are a bunch of totalitarian freaks. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #86 on: July 09, 2012, 05:29:19 AM »
latimes.com/health/la-me-cap-healthcare-20120709,0,5687736.column

latimes.com

CAPITOL JOURNAL

'Affordable' Care Act? Not so much for Sacramento


Obama's healthcare overhaul is one more costly program for a red-ink state.

George Skelton

Capitol Journal

 July 9, 2012



In Washington, it's called the Affordable Care Act. In Sacramento, it could be become known as another budget buster.

Obamacare — as it's pugnaciously tagged by the political right — may not be affordable at all for California state government.

Soon after the federal healthcare act was passed by Congress in 2010, the Schwarzenegger administration in Sacramento calculated a state price tag of up to $2.65 billion annually.

The Brown administration has torn up that price tag, but doesn't have a new one. They're working on it, "trying to be much more precise," says Len Finocchio, associate director of the Department of Health Care Services.

Good luck on that. As Sacramento consistently demonstrates, being precise on government spending projections is virtually impossible.

But Finocchio acknowledges that the federal act will result in a heavier state financial load. "We almost certainly will be adding Medi-Cal enrollees, and that will be a cost," he notes.

The additional burden on the states is a negative aspect of the healthcare overhaul that seldom gets discussed, especially in Obama-rooting, liberal-dominated Sacramento.

It's as if somehow it would be contradictory — even Democratic heresy — to support a laudable expansion of healthcare coverage and to also acknowledge that it was going to require more California tax dollars. To ignore the cost is to be intellectually dishonest.

There's a lot of emphasis on the additional federal funds — up to $15 billion annually — expected to be spent in California because of the healthcare law.

But there will be an added state cost for the expansion of Medi-Cal, the California version of the federal Medicaid program for the poor. Finocchio estimates that up to 1.6 million more Californians will enroll in Medi-Cal. But it's really anybody's guess. Each person will cost the state more money.

Some of those enrollees will be people currently eligible for Medi-Cal but for whatever reason — perhaps stigma — haven't signed up. Under the new law, it will be easier and more beneficial to enroll.

The other newcomers to Medi-Cal will be people who became eligible only because of the new law's looser eligibility rules.

The cost of coverage for the currently eligible will be shared 50-50 by the feds and the state. Washington will pay 100% of the tab for newly eligible enrollees for two years, then reduce it to 95% and permanently kick in 90% starting in 2020.

In all, 7 million Californians now are uninsured. Starting in 2014, more than 2 million are expected to buy policies with federal subsidies for families earning $92,000 or less.

"We want to make it as easy as buying a book on Amazon," says Peter Lee, executive director of the California Health Benefit Exchange, an online market where consumers and small businesses will be able to comparison shop for medical insurance.

"This is by far the biggest change in health coverage since Medicare" was enacted in 1965, he says.

But the big cost to the state will be for the generous expansion of Medi-Cal, a Medicare offshoot.

And it's ironic because California can't even afford its current Medi-Cal program. It has been cutting back on poor people's care in recent years to staunch budget bleeding.

The state budget passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last month included more than $1 billion in cuts to Medi-Cal and other health programs.

Two years ago, after passage of the federal act, Kim Belshe, then secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, told me: "Medicaid is crumbling. It makes no sense to be building on a house that's falling apart."

And then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed: "I have always supported the need for comprehensive health reform. However, for healthcare reform to succeed, states must either have the flexibility to live within the revenues that are available to them or the federal resources to fully fund its mandates."

In upholding the constitutionality of Obama's prized act, theU.S. Supreme Courtgave the states an opportunity to bow out of the Medicaid expansion without penalty. But there's virtually no chance that California will take the court up on its offer.

First, California always has had one of the most generous Medicaid programs for patients — although for physicians it's one of the worst because of low fees.

Second, as Finocchio notes: "It's hard for politicians to take something away" once it has been given.

The Brown administration has been moving at full speed to position California for the act's implementation. In fact, it already has begun covering 280,000 people — mostly childless adults — as part of a demonstration program.

"This is a very great day," state Health and Human Services Secretary Diana Dooley declared after the court gave the act the green light. "We are in the full-go mode here."

Brown asserted that the court's decision "removes the last roadblock to fulfilling President Obama's historic plan to bring healthcare to millions of uninsured citizens."

But it's another state cost that no one is considering how to pay for — not nearly as extravagant as the mostly unfunded bullet train, but the same basic idea: meritorious, but moneyless.

Hey, what's the hurry? Maybe Mitt Romney will boot Obama, Republicans will capture the Senate and they'll repeal Obamacare.

Maybe the California economy will be roaring back by 2014 and pumping barrels of tax dollars into Sacramento. Maybe the governor and Legislature will reform the state's outdated tax system so it generates a reliable revenue stream.

One thing is certain: Something better happen or California will be stuck with yet another government program it can't afford.

george.skelton@latimes.com
 

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times


________________________ ________________________ _______


BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THUGCARE MAKES STATES SICK 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #87 on: July 10, 2012, 04:51:15 AM »
 :D

garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #88 on: July 10, 2012, 09:35:34 AM »
Remember when Glenn Beck said that he could not deny that Obama had established re-education camps?

Whatever became of that?

G

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #89 on: July 10, 2012, 09:37:01 AM »
Remember when Glenn Beck said that he could not deny that Obama had established re-education camps?

Whatever became of that?




blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #90 on: July 10, 2012, 09:37:32 AM »
i want to know where are the death panels  :D :D :D :D :D

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #91 on: July 10, 2012, 09:38:58 AM »
i want to know where are the death panels  :D :D :D :D :D

Right here. 


garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #92 on: July 10, 2012, 10:04:56 AM »

This doesn't answer my question.

In which state are the re-education camps?

G

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #93 on: July 11, 2012, 05:41:05 AM »
July 10, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Obamacare: Storm Coming

Amid the debate over mandates, more fundamental medical problems are overlooked.

By Marc Siegel

 


There may be a debate over whether Obamacare’s individual mandate is a penalty or a tax, but there is no debate among doctors and their patients about the fact that Obamacare will be bad for America’s health.
 
The climate in my medical office is changing; my patients sense that a storm is coming. They are worried, and there is little I can do to reassure them. They are used to my office manager getting approvals for the CT scans, mammograms, PSAs, and MRIs I order, and they realize that many of these tests will no longer be covered by insurance once Obamacare’s committees — which look at so-called comparative-effectiveness research and review current guidelines — are through with them.
 
Last week, with the Fourth of July looming, I was able to get a quick CT scan to rule out appendicitis for one patient, and an ultrasound of the legs to quickly diagnose a blood clot for another. Tests like these — ordered solely on the basis of my medical intuition – may not be possible in a few years. Since in both cases the symptoms weren’t “textbook,” I would probably have had to appeal to some Kafkaesque committee, wasting precious time; in an extreme instance, this could even cost a patient his or her life.
 
My patients know that their premiums will be going up and that, paradoxically, they will be receiving less service for their money. This is what happens when more people enter the system and are covered with easy-to-overuse insurance. Patients who overuse services will ultimately crowd out legitimate use for the group, as more regulations are imposed by both public and private insurers to preserve their bottom lines. Unfortunately, this process jeopardizes the art of medicine and real medical treatments, as doctors are pressured to conform to guidelines and insurers refuse to cover creative solutions. Obamacare caters to the worried well by allowing anyone to use the insurance, whether he or she is sick or not, with lower co-pays and deductibles and therefore no incentive against overuse. My patients also realize that I will be paid less for seeing them — first by Medicare and Medicaid, and then the private insurers will follow suit. Patients anticipate longer waits in my office and less time to spend with me. No one is asking me any more when I will change my office carpet or paint the peeling walls.
 

My patients know that there is a doctor shortage, and that many of the doctors who are practicing medicine today are not accepting their insurance. They know that this reality applies to specialists as well as primary-care doctors. Nurse practitioners are well trained and have a focus on nutrition and prevention that many doctors lack, but my patients know they are not interchangeable with me.
 
My patients are smart, and they can see into the Obamacare future, but there are a few things they may not anticipate. First, I believe our newest technology is in jeopardy because it is made for targeted, super-specialized treatment. We have been leaving the age of one-size-fits-all solutions and entering the age of personalized genetic and immunological treatments for cancer and other chronic diseases. Not only are these treatments expensive, but they also won’t work with an insurance or government-run model of care, which cannot justify a big expense for a treatment for a small group of bpatients (known as an orphan drug). This problem already exists in the current health-care world (Avastin and other targeted treatments for cancer, as well as the latest surgical techniques, are not always covered), but it will only get worse with Obamacare, which has strained to throw the insurance blanket over more and more people.

Second, there will be fewer and fewer opportunities to pay for health care out of pocket. Flexible-spending accounts will be reduced to less than $2,500 per year beginning in 2013, and tax deductions for medical services will be harder to get. Paying out of pocket makes a patient more aware of what he or she is getting for the money and, even with the tax deduction, less likely to see a doctor unless the need is real. Reducing these options is one of Obamacare’s big mistakes.
 
Third, as long as doctors practice in a climate where frivolous lawsuits are a constant threat, they will be particularly vulnerable to the whims of Obamacare. Remember, if I believe you should have a test for your prostate or your lungs or your breast but insurance won’t cover it, I am the only one liable if there is a bad outcome, not the insurance company, and not the government agency that issues guidelines insisting the test isn’t necessary. Even if I were simply following a government guideline, I could still be sued frivolously for a bad outcome.
 
Of course, there will still be doctors who consider medicine a calling rather than a business, doctors who will continue to practice medicine with the same careful, caring approach, no matter how it affects their bottom lines. This may be the only way for doctors to continue to feel good about what they do, but unfortunately, it is not the most practical way to survive the Obamacare storm.
 
— Marc Siegel, M.D., is an associate professor of medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center and medical director of the center’s Doctor Radio. He is a member of the Fox News Medical A Team and the author of The Inner Pulse: Unlocking the Secret Code of Sickness and Health.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #94 on: July 11, 2012, 05:50:34 AM »
http://newsok.com/obamacare-a-minefield-for-workers-in-oklahoma/article/3691058/?page=1


Great article for you leftist panzies still confused on ThugCare.   

Its a freaking disaster. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #95 on: July 11, 2012, 02:15:58 PM »
Auditors: Obama administration is bending health law

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times

 Wednesday, July 11, 2012




Congress’s non-partisan investigative arm said Wednesday President Obama is stretching the law to give bonuses to mediocre private Medicare plans — an $8 billion program the auditors had already urged the administration to cancel.

In a pointed letter, the Government Accountability Office’s chief lawyer said the administration hasn’t shown that it can learn anything by a “demonstration” project to pay bonuses to average-performing plans in the Medicare Advantage program. The lawyer also questioned “the agency’s legal authority to undertake the demonstration.”

Opponents have said the $8 billion project amounts to a slush fund designed to cover up the Medicare cuts in Mr. Obama’s health care law, at least until 2014 when the law kicks into full effect.

The administration counters that it’s using the money to learn what kinds of incentives can spur private companies to offer better coverage.

The GAO, Congress’s independent auditors, said that’s a stretch, since the demonstration seems designed to produce little useful data and could even reduce incentives for private plans to provide better care.

Because the demonstrations will likely fail, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is part of her department, don’t have the authority to enact them, GAO said.

“Although CMS stated its expectation that plans will use additional bonus payments to improve the quality of care provided to beneficiaries, it did not address the fact that current Medicare regulations preclude plans’ ability to do so,” GAO General Counsel Lynn H. Gibson wrote.

The administration didn’t reply to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon.

Ms. Sebelius had previously rejected the audit agency’s findings and said her department would move ahead with the demonstration project.

Republican opponents of Democrats’ health law said the GAO letter proves the administration is trying to cover for the law’s cuts to Medicare Advantage, an alternative private plan-based system that provides coverage for about a quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries.

“Lacking the legal authority to undertake a project of this magnitude shows how the Obama administration tried to use a technicality to sidestep Congress and write itself a blank check to spend more money for political purposes leading into this year’s elections,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, who has been keeping a close eye on the matter.

Earlier this year GAO issued a report saying the program was likely doomed to fail. In unusually stern language, the auditors urged the administration to cancel it altogether.

Wednesday’s letter went a step further in questioning the legal authority of the administration even to go forward.

GAO answers to Congress and does not have independent authority to halt the demonstration project. Congress could withdraw funding, but Democrats have been wary of taking any action that would appear to undo major parts of the health law.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #96 on: July 11, 2012, 02:19:12 PM »
Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-now-estimated-cost-26-trillion-first-decade_648413.html


11:29 AM, Jul 11, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER





The Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee will later today release the following chart, detailing the rising projected cost of President Obama's signature legislation, Obamacare:


The latest estimate, as the chart details, is that Obamacare will cost $2.6 trillion dollars in its first real decade. The bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, therefore the estimate begins with that year.
 
"President Obama promised a joint session of Congress in 2009 to spend $900 billion over ten years on his health care law: 'Now, add it all up, and the plan that I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.' Adding up all the different spending provisions in the health care law, however, (including closing the Medicare 'donut hole,' implementation costs, and other spending) total gross spending over the FY 2010–19 period is about $1.4 trillion, based on CBO estimates," the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff explains. "And most of the major spending provisions in the law do not even take effect until 2014. Congressional Democrats delayed these provisions in order to show only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window (from FY2010-19) used by CBO at the time the law was enacted. Therefore, the original estimate concealed the fact that most of the law’s spending only doesn’t even begin until four years into the 10-year window. A Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates) finds that that total spending under the law will amount to at least $2.6 trillion over a true 10-year period (from FY2014–23)—not $900 billion, as President Obama originally promised."


The chart is being released now to coincide with the House vote later today to repeal Obamacare.
 
As the chart notes, "Estimates of the gross outlays under the President's health care law in nominal dollars using CBO estimates of major coverage provisions, as well as Senate Budget Committee Republican projections based on CBO estimates of the remaining costs."


________________________ ____________


Another Obama lie. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66458
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #97 on: July 11, 2012, 04:21:39 PM »
Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-now-estimated-cost-26-trillion-first-decade_648413.html


11:29 AM, Jul 11, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER





The Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee will later today release the following chart, detailing the rising projected cost of President Obama's signature legislation, Obamacare:


The latest estimate, as the chart details, is that Obamacare will cost $2.6 trillion dollars in its first real decade. The bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, therefore the estimate begins with that year.
 
"President Obama promised a joint session of Congress in 2009 to spend $900 billion over ten years on his health care law: 'Now, add it all up, and the plan that I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.' Adding up all the different spending provisions in the health care law, however, (including closing the Medicare 'donut hole,' implementation costs, and other spending) total gross spending over the FY 2010–19 period is about $1.4 trillion, based on CBO estimates," the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff explains. "And most of the major spending provisions in the law do not even take effect until 2014. Congressional Democrats delayed these provisions in order to show only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window (from FY2010-19) used by CBO at the time the law was enacted. Therefore, the original estimate concealed the fact that most of the law’s spending only doesn’t even begin until four years into the 10-year window. A Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates) finds that that total spending under the law will amount to at least $2.6 trillion over a true 10-year period (from FY2014–23)—not $900 billion, as President Obama originally promised."


The chart is being released now to coincide with the House vote later today to repeal Obamacare.
 
As the chart notes, "Estimates of the gross outlays under the President's health care law in nominal dollars using CBO estimates of major coverage provisions, as well as Senate Budget Committee Republican projections based on CBO estimates of the remaining costs."


________________________ ____________


Another Obama lie. 

MSM should be all over this.  I'll be holding my breath. 

garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #98 on: July 11, 2012, 05:22:45 PM »
http://newsok.com/obamacare-a-minefield-for-workers-in-oklahoma/article/3691058/?page=1


Great article for you leftist panzies still confused on ThugCare.   

Its a freaking disaster. 
How about you copy and paste it?

G

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.