Showing posts with label Medicare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medicare. Show all posts

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Obamacare Slashes Senior Home Health Care Services

In early April, the Obama Administration delayed cuts in the Medicare Advantage program mandated by Obamacare. These plans, used by 30% of Medicare beneficiaries, supplement traditional Medicare coverage. The planned cuts to the MA program risked a political firestorm just months before the midterm elections. While MA received a short-term pardon, the Obama Administration is going forward with dramatic cuts to home health care services for seniors.

by Mike Flynn 23 Apr 2014, 7:59 PM PDT  -  Breitbart.com: Over 3.5 million seniors receive health care services in their home. Over 60% of the recipients are women. These beneficiaries tend to be older, poorer and sicker than the overall Medicare population. Because of this, they often lack transportation, making home health care services critical for their well-being. Those impacted by the ongoing cuts are the most vulnerable and at-risk seniors. 

Obamacare gave the Obama administration wide latitude in containing spending in the program. In a decision that baffled critics, however, the administration chose to impose the maximum cuts allowed, cutting reimbursements by 14% over the next four years. The announced cuts will dramatically shrink the home health care sector and leave over a million seniors without access to health services. 

“Despite the broad discretion granted to it by Obamacare, the Administration decided to impose the deepest possible cut, which is already having a dire impact on jobs, women and vulnerable seniors,” Eric Berger, CEO of the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare said. “Without relief, these Medicare cuts will continue to impact the home health professionals upon whom millions of the Medicare program’s most vulnerable seniors depend.” 

In issuing its reimbursement guidelines, the administration acknowledged that "approximately 40%" of the more than 11,000 home health care agencies would be losing money by 2017. 

Home health care services had been one of the fastest growing sector for jobs. In December, 2013, however, on the eve of the cuts taking effect, the sector shed almost 4,000 jobs, the largest loss of jobs in the sector in more than a decade. Over 1.2 million Americans currently work in the home health care sector, 90% of whom are women. An analysis by Avarle Consulting estimated that almost half of these jobs, 498,000, are threatened by the Obamacare cuts.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Obama Spends $17M Per Month Of Our Money Advertising ObamaCare

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidmC3FfJq8uO8BM3LbNRvQwTx32US46zZhRScZDk4pcjsCY8N7WhoV19s4TVEm97-2yPezQnyx3OlPPoUrMJV3koZ0xRNxGASQMRVIMlx4jGDPZGsVnVPj3PVXnGk4Nm8KRxB0Bo0EjujZ/s1600/483937_531284283593294_600765715_n.jpg

Joshua Pundit: According to Pravda-On-The Hudson, the Obama Administration is spending $17M per monthof your tax dollars advertising for ObamaCare:

From January until the end of March, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

, which runs the HealthCare.gov site and administers the Affordable Care Act, will have spent $52 million on paid media, officials said. Conservative opponents of the law have concentrated their spending on ads focusing on Democratic candidates and sowing doubts about the viability of the law.

The idea is to get young, uninsured Americans to sign up for President Obama's signature program - high, unaffordable pricing, minimal coverage, high deductibles,numerous glitches and abominable security for personal data. Not surprisingly, they're avoiding it like the plague.

The president's new tactic reveals exactly how stupid he thinks we all are:

Russian troops were rolling through Crimea when Denis R. McDonough, the White House chief of staff and a foreign policy expert, was deployed on a mission to do media outreach. But the focus of Mr. McDonough’s calls to local talk radio stations was not geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe, it was health care.

Mr. McDonough chatted with Andy Baskin and Jeff Phelps, hosts of a popular sports talk radio program on WKRK-FM (92.3) in Cleveland, about the coming N.F.L. draft, basketball at the White House and his days playing college football in Minnesota. Mr. McDonough then pitched a new website featuring games, videos and superstar athletes explaining the benefits of health insurance: a sports-themed portal to HealthCare.gov.

“We’ve all seen it happen,” said Mr. McDonough, promoting the portal, GamePlan4Me, to the hosts of “Baskin & Phelps” and their mostly young, mostly male audience. “Somebody’s playing hoops, and they blow out a knee or something. And then all of a sudden, if you don’t have health care, you’re going to bankrupt yourself.”

Actually, with the standard deductible for Bronze coverage being between a hefty $5,000 to to $6,350 for a single adult, the average person is going to go bankrupt with that kind of injury whether he or she buys ObamaCare or not. As a matter of fact, given the stiff premiums, you might go bankrupt even if you avoid a major injury.

But again, this president thinks everyone's stupid but him and that you'll be distracted by games and celebrity endorsements.

The only people whom win in this con game are people who qualify for MedicAid, AKA free stuff. Which of course, was always what this was about - government control and a huge transfer of wealth from the Middle class  to the entitlement class.

The fact that the president, congress and the rest of the Ruling Class are trying to force you to buy into this cynical fraud when they  aren't willing to take advantage of this 'wonderful program' themselves ought to clue you in to how horrible it really is.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Doctor Retires due to ObamaCare

Doctor Posts Newspaper Notice: Closing Due to Obamacare

Townhall- Cross-Posted at AskMarion: Obamacare realities just became a little more intense in the Bluegrass State. Requirements in the Affordable Care Act presented Kentucky Dr. Stephen Kiteck with obstacles he “just couldn’t overcome.”

This tweet helped uncover the story:

View image on Twitter

Twitter: Dara Bailey @darab_ic

They said it wouldn't happen.....wrong again.

7:21 PM - 8 Dec 2013

Dr. Kiteck verified the ad to Townhall Tuesday:

“It’s pretty basic really. The reason is that Obamacare requires electronic medical records and electronic prescribing and I simply don’t have the finances at this time to go into debt to provide that for my office, it would just be a complete new transfer of electronic equipment in my office for that.

So for me, at my age, I’m just not ready to go into financial debt. Of the 20,000 pages in there, probably up to 1,000 pages are about doctors' offices."

The Electronic Medical Records mandate requires an electronic overhaul by 2015 or penalization. Check out this visual of its implementation:

 

http://electronicmedicalrecordsmandate.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/emr-mandate.jpg

 

"I’ve got 6,000 records, some of them are two inches thick. It would just be basically impossible to scan all of these and put them on electronic medical records and very expensive, by the way,” said Dr. Kiteck, pointing to the many man hours of pay that an electronic overhaul would require.

“It’s a solo practice, I’m just a very small solo practice. I call myself a mom and pop practice,” Dr. Kiteck explained, “so I’ve had it for about twenty years here in Somerset, Kentucky.”

The ad ran for the sake of his customers, according to Dr. Kiteck, as a common courtesy to give patients a one-month notice,

“I just happened to start it out with that little notice there, because so many patients have questions why you’re doing it.”

Kiteck said his ad likely opened up a Pandora’s Box. But the truth is, the box had already been opened when Obamacare was signed into law, and the frightening effects are only beginning to fly out.

Breitbart: The notice closes with this message, "Dr. Kiteck wishes to thank all his patients that have visited his office over the past 20 years, and apologizes for this inconvenience."

Dr. Kiteck's office confirmed that he is indeed closing his practice and that he did publish the notice in the paper. Asked if he would agree to an interview, his receptionist indicated that he'd received many calls from the media but was not prepared to make any additional statement at this time.

There have been surveys which suggested a significant number of doctors might quit or retire early as a result of the new health law. A  2013 Deloitte Survey of U.S. Physicians found that 62 percent of doctors expected some of their colleagues to retire early.

Dr. Kiteck is a 64 year old board certified family physician with a good rating for patient satisfaction on healthgrades.com.

Update: Buzzfeed got through to Dr. Kiteck and he cites a specific reason for retiring, a requirement to use electronic medical records in his practice. That requirement was not part of Obamacare but was included in the stimulus act. Physicians must move to electronic records by 2015 and because of the way use is reported, that means mid-2014 is the deadline for a working system. Those who fail to meet the deadline are charged a fine of 1% (deducted from their reimbursements).

Video Report: Doctors quit on Obamacare

Monday, November 11, 2013

The Hidden Obamacare Taxes That Will Crush The Middle Class

MoneyMorning: Get ready to be blindsided by a barrage of new taxes. $1 trillion worth...

They'll be coming courtesy of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

And they won't just be affecting those who make over $250,000. The bulk of these taxes will be passed on directly to the middle class.

That's because while a majority of these "stealth taxes" were designed to be taxes on businesses, they're actually transferred directly to ordinary citizens.

They include the investment income surtax, a Medicare payroll tax, even a "tanning tax" on those who utilize indoor tanning services.

"Many of those [hidden] taxes, especially those on hospitals, insurers and medical device manufacturers, will ultimately be passed on through higher health costs," said Michael Tanner an expert on the healthcare law.

In fact, analysts estimate Obamacare will cost the average taxpayer nearly $6,000 in extra taxes as early as next year.

Obamacare Tax Hikes Stoke Outrage

Many of the Obamacare taxes are already in effect, others will hit January 1. But they are already infuriating millions of Americans.

While even Obamacare detractors applaud the requirement that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions and put a stop to lifetime caps on benefits, they say these laudable benefits don't compensate for the bills high cost - especially in new taxes.

According to most experts, Obamacare will create a total of twenty new taxes or tax hikes on the American people.

In fact, the Obama administration has already given the IRS an extra $500 million to enforce the rules and regulations of Obamacare.

The new taxes don't bode well for millions of middle-class Americans. Incomes for the rich have soared this decade but middle class workers have seen their wages stagnate and even drop since the 2008 Great Recession.

Many fear Obamacare with its high insurance costs and new taxes, could provide the middle class a fatal blow.

Of course, the Obamacare plan was primarily designed to decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce healthcare costs.

Many experts are saying it will have the exact opposite effect.

That's just one of the reasons why Republicans hope to defund Obamacare before January.

They claim that the taxes and costs needed to pay for Obamacare will crush the middle class and most U.S. taxpayers, as well as trigger job losses in affected industries.

Tax experts say you should try to estimate how much you will have to pay when the law goes into full effect - and take precautions to limit the damage to your bottom line.

One expert, Dr. Betsy McCaughey, a constitutional scholar with a Ph.D. from Columbia University, recently wrote a best-seller showing Americans how they can not only survive Obamacare, but prosper through it.

McCaughey claims to be one of the only people in the country - including members of Congress - who has actually read the entire 2,572 page law.

Her book, titled Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for the New Healthcare Law, breaks the huge bill down into 168 pages of actionable advice.

The book, written in an easy going, easy to read style, shows some startling facts about Obamacare not seen in the mainstream press.

For example, she points to a little known passage in the bill that shows how you could get slapped with a $2,000 fine for not having health insurance - even if you do actually have it.

She also goes into detail explaining how a third of all U.S. employers could stop offering health insurance to their workers.

In one chapter, she shows how ordinary Americans will get stuck paying for substance abuse coverage - even if they never touched a drink or drug in their life.

According to McCaughey's research, senior citizens will get hit the hardest.

Hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery will be especially hard to get from Medicare in the months ahead thanks to Obamacare, according to McCaughey.

She warns seniors to get those types of procedures done now before Obamacare goes into effect January 1.

Book: Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for the New Healthcare Law

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Forum: What Do You Predict The Ultimate Fate Of ObamaCare Will Be?

Watcher of Weasels  - Cross-posted at AskMarion: Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day. This week’s question: What Do You Predict The Ultimate Fate Of ObamaCare Will Be?

The Independent Sentinel: I learned that no matter what the government does wrong, it will be the Republican’s fault.

Even Republicans will blame Republicans.

When Obamacare tanks, it will be the Republican’s fault for not trying hard enough to repeal it.

The Glittering Eye: Cutting to the chase, here’s what I wrote as a comment to this post of mine:

My off-hand conjecture is that on April 1, 2014 the scope of the problem of lack of healthcare insurance will be about the same as it was on February 1, 2009, healthcare will be substantially more expensive, and a bit more than five years will have been allowed to elapse without addressing the fundamental problem of cost.

There are no prospects for the PPACA being repealed until after 2016. Neither the president nor Senate Democrats will allow that to happen. As to its fate after 2016, who knows? The frequent assertion that once enacted into law entitlements are sacrosanct is incorrect—the long-term care benefit enacted and repealed during the Reagan Administration is an example that comes immediately to mind as does AFDC.

As of this writing it looks very likely as though the PPACA will run into cost overruns more rapidly than anyone could possibly have imagined. That’s clearly what will happen if 85% of those who sign up for insurance under the plan are enrolled in Medicaid and the balance are already sick and desperate enough for insurance that they’ll put up with the ordeal of registering for insurance under the federal exchanges.

Working together those will make decreasing healthcare’s outrageous costs all the more urgent than it was in 2009 and, sadly, the PPACA does very little beyond wishful thinking to do that.

The Right Planet  : There isn’t enough pixels in the universe to contain all my work on the #ObamacareFAIL.

Bookworm Room: I don’t care if Obamacare fails. I hate the thought of our country’s medical care and economy failing….. (Especially since my husband currently earns a nice living thanks to the medical care system.) I foresee lean times ahead.

Simply Jews : I know that I will, most probably, piss off my Republican friends on this forum. However, my answer is less about this specific (and very doubtful) implementation of healthcare, rather about what I wish to happen in USA regarding that painful issue. So, instead of the ultimate fate let’s talk about the ultimate hope.

As one who has experienced for several years one of the existing medical insurances in US, here is my impression:

  1. Devilishly expensive, even for generally healthy people
  2. The “pre-existing conditions” could probably kill one with time
  3. Excellent medical care is followed (or even preceded in some cases) by a bureaucratic nightmare and a maze of phone calls with people who don’t understand, aren’t eager to help and in general couldn’t care less.
  4. Out of work – out of luck, or very soon so.

My apologies if I am wrong in some details, some time has passed since. Besides, we were mostly healthy then.

What I wish to happen to my American friends: a complete reform of the medical care, based on successful examples that proved to work in some countries:Japan, Israel, France and several others. Make it simple and efficient and make it work. And yes, add optional private insurances for those who want some additional bells and whistles – I am not a commie enough to be against this.

If you look at this table, US has the most expensive healthcare. Meaning the money is already there, and there is more than anywhere else in the world.  It is just used (abused) by insurance companies very inefficiently. So the issue is not the lack of funding, rather the poor organization, spiraling uncontrolled insurance/care costs and chaotic oversight of the whole system, which by now became too complicated to manage successfully.

Will Obamacare succeed? They way it was set up – as a doubtful system of compromises and as an additional superstructure on top of the already crumbling base – I doubt it. But at least it may speed the process of destruction of the current status-quo and the birth of a really workable and working healthcare system.

And, by the way, there is another, but closely related, issue of litigation, ambulance chasing in simple words, that has helped the prices of treatment skyrocketing, doing the same to the insurance prices… this must be reigned in too.

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Whale, I have absolutely no idea so I’m going with Skippy Klein’s Ouija board here:

1. Affordable Care Act is a success, and liberals build on it
Under this outcome, the law works as well as or better than its supporters predicted. After some initial hiccups, it expands insurance coverage to those in need without disrupting the health care experience for those who are already satisfied. The cost-control measures work, and providers are able to deliver better care at a lower price by taking advantage of government incentives to be more efficient. As a result, the government saves hundreds of billions of dollars on Medicare without seniors noticing any cuts to their benefits and access. Young and healthy Americans flood into the insurance market to offset the cost of providing insurance to older and sicker Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions. The new insurance exchanges are vibrant marketplaces offering beneficiaries a wide range of options, promoting competition that drives down the cost of premiums. Over time, more individuals and businesses demand access to the exchanges, and America evolves into an exchange-driven single-payer system.

2. Affordable Care Act is an epic disaster and it gets fully repealed
Under this scenario, the law unravels. The cost controls do not work, proving especially troublesome for smaller regional hospitals. They either start closing, stop accepting Medicare or cut services. This effectively reduces the benefits seniors can get out of Medicare, and they, along with industry lobbyists, pressure Congress into undoing the cuts that are one of the primary offsets to the law’s trillions in new spending. On top of this, new taxes kick in – mandate penalties, the insurance premium tax, the medical device tax, pharmaceutical tax, etc. – and businesses struggle to adjust to a raft of new regulations. The exchanges are swamped with technical problems and poorly administered, making it difficult for individuals to sign up. Not many insurers participate in the exchanges, meaning they don’t offer sufficient choices to promote competition. New regulatory requirements drive up the price of premiums, so young and healthy Americans decide they’d rather pay a penalty than invest in costly insurance. Without the younger and healthier people in the risk pool to offset the cost of sicker Americans, insurers raise premiums even further, prompting yet more individuals to exit the insurance market. And so, the dreaded insurance “death spiral” ensues. In the meantime, newly insured individuals start taking advantage of their free or heavily subsidized care, but the capacity of the health care sector does not grow quickly enough to meet demand, translating into long waits at doctors’ offices and difficulty getting appointments in the first place. The ensuing backlash from all fronts leads to a Republican takeover of the Senate in 2014 and helps elect a Republican president in 2016. At some point in 2017, a new Republican president signs a law wiping Affordable Care Act off the books.

3. Affordable Care Act is largely a disaster, but it survives, and possibly expands
At some point at least some constituency of voters will be deriving some benefits from the law. It’s one thing to support repeal when it means voting against theoretical subsidies for theoretical beneficiaries. But once the law goes into place, repealing the law would mean stripping away benefits from people actively receiving government aid. Let’s say, in 2017, there’s an incoming Republican president with – at best – control of the House and a narrow Republican Senate majority. Would he or she be willing to use reconciliation to push through a repeal bill when confronted with Democratic attacks that it would take millions off the Medicaid rolls and make millions more lose their subsidized private insurance? Republicans have not traditionally shown themselves to have the political fortitude to roll back entitlements once they are in place. At the same time, if Republicans do not respond with an alternative to clean up the mess, then liberals will begin to blame problems in the health care sector on the idea that Affordable Care Act left too much control in the hands of private industry. This will prepare the groundwork for a further move toward a socialized single-payer health care system, perhaps by, say, re-introducing a “public option.” There have been many times in American history when failures of government policy led to further expansions of government. Limited government advocates should be wary of this happening with Affordable Care Act.

4. Affordable Care Act is largely a disaster, and it gets reformed
Under this scenario, a combination of public backlash and adverse court decisions forces Congress to re-open Affordable Care Act. It doesn’t get fully repealed, but it gets reformed. Perhaps, for instance, exchanges remain, but there are far fewer restrictions on what type of insurance can be offered, broadening the range of options and providing more affordable choices for those who don’t have as many medical needs. States may be given actual flexibility on the operation of the exchanges, and Medicaid funds become block granted. Insurance is made accessible to those with pre-existing conditions without the “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” policies that force insurers to cover everybody who applies at a price effectively set by government. This allows Congress to get rid of the federal individual mandate.

Liberty’s Spirit:Note: I am going to address this as the parent of two special needs children. Someone who has had to pay hundreds of thousands for therapies, support systems and doctors that are not covered under any insurance plan. I have seen what the high cost of healthcare can do to do a family in this country and there is no question that there needs to be an overhaul of the entire system. So I am NOT against many of the provisions of Obamacare: allowing children to stay on their parents health insurance until they are 26 (for those of us with special needs children this is financial helpful. The cost for them for health insurance would have been staggering if our children could even get health insurance at all); not allowing insurance companies to deny a policy due to preexisting conditions (most insurance companies would not write a new policy for someone with autism, epilepsy and any other preexisting conditions); providing for autism treatments, etc. However, as the child of a parent on medicare advantage (Humana) I am concerned that this terrific program is going to end.

I am going to start off from another rather rebellious position….I think there is nothing wrong with requiring people to carry health insurance. If hospitals have to treat people when they get sick, there has to be some way that those bills get paid. Most people who have no insurance do not end up paying their hospital bills and that means the rest of us are left with the cost when we are sick. The problem is that the way the law is written it is still financially better for some people to pay the fine rather than carry health insurance. (Israel, which has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, requires their population to carry insurance plans.)

Also there is a huge issue with the general cost of medicine. Most nations that have socialized medicine negotiate with drug companies about how much they can charge, which means the American people end up paying the drug company’s loss when we by our medication. This has not been addressed.

The cost to educate a doctor is ridiculous. But that is the issue with the cost of higher education (another issue for another day). So many doctors coming out of medical school are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and need to find a position that allows them to live and pay off their student loans. This makes healthcare very expensive in this nation.

Death panels are a big issue. The idea that bureaucrats will decide whether someone has the right to medical care is frightening. However, at the same time, insurance companies decide whether they will pay for some medications, surgeries and therapies, which if you cannot afford these on your own, can become a form of a death panel as well. The idea that certain persons (age, illness) and those with disabilities, do not have the same right to life as those of a certain caliber is replete in society and as seen by the writings of those like Ezekiel Emmanuel, who helped craft Obamacare, eugenics is considered not only acceptable but for the betterment of society. Furthermore, the targeting of conservatives by the IRS does not engender competence that politics will not be used as a weapon to deny healthcare to those who challenge the policies of the executive branch (which is what happens in a fascist society.)

There is no provision in Obamacare where you can sue the government if you disagree with a ruling by the panel. The law is that you cannot sue the federal government unless they allow it (sovereign immunity.) Unlike at present where you can sue your insurance company if they rule against you for a treatment, Obamacare does not allow for this remedy. Administrative relief is not always enough.

The issue with Obamacare is that the provision that the republicans wanted, the right to sell insurance across state lines, which would have brought down the cost due to the real free market, was rejected. The reality is that instead of providing people with a lower cost, more effective form of health insurance, Obamacare is a nightmare and does nothing to reduce the costs of healthcare in this country.

The exchanges are too costly and do not offer most people the same type of insurance that they were used to carrying. This needs to be fixed. No I do not blame Obamacare per se that people’s insurance policies have been canceled. Instead of complying with Obamacare the insurance companies have simply decided to cancel the policies and push people into the exchanges. While this was foreseeable, it is the choice of the insurance companies.

It is embarrassing that the government website is such a disaster. It does not engender competence that DC will be able to fairly and effectively regulate healthcare.

Will it survive? Yes it will. Does it need tweaking? Absolutely.

JoshuaPundit:  ObamaCare as it is now will almost definitely fail. Among other things, it depends on young, healthy people applying for overpriced policies with scanty coverage and ridiculous deductibles that will not even cover them in the event they need emergency coverage from ‘out of network’ doctors. They’re staying away in droves, while the vast majority of people now signing up for the exchanges are people that qualify for MedicAid, there being an unlimited demand for free stuff at someone else’s expense. There is no way to fix  this basic problem without spending huge amounts of money, because medical providers will simply opt out in order to avoid going bankrupt. And actually, that’s  the whole idea.

Let’s start out with this basic truism – ObamaCare was never about healthcare per se. It is about increased taxation (and unconstitutional taxation at that, as anyone who can read the Constitution can discover for themselves) and government control.  As I wrote a week or so ago, the end game for ObamaCare is single payer with government mandated rationing and ultimately  the Sovietization of American healthcare. It was designed to fail, and as it does, the Left will hold out the carrot of single payer as a panacea.

I have always said that anyone unwilling to utter the words ‘tort reform’ and to deal with America’s problem with illegal aliens (another huge factor in driving up healthcare costs nobody wants to mention) is not serious about reforming healthcare and reducing the cost of it to the average citizen.

Tort reform hasn’t happened because the majority of members of congress are lawyers, many with practices back home, while the various trial lawyer associations are major donors to the Democrat party.And illegal aliens and those that advocate for them are becoming a constituency for a lot of politicians in Washington.Senator John  McCain’s chief financial backer, for example, is the owner of the Spanish language media giant UniVision.

ObamaCare is  the only major social legislation ever passed in America by one party alone, and the manner in which it was pushed through is in violation of rules that have governed how laws are passed by congress in our Republic for well over a century. It also is a perversion of the Constitution because it provides a precedent wherein the Federal government can use its police power to force its citizens to buy something  or not buy something  just  because.  The damage done to our institutions if ObamaCare stands as a precedent will be horrendous.

Another issue no one wants to discuss is the issue of social control. Government bureaucrats will decide who rates certain procedures and who doesn’t. Given how the IRS has been used in an unprecedented fashion to wage war on the Obama Administration’s political enemies and is in charge of enforcing ObamaCare, is anyone naive enough to believe that the huge amount of personal data accessible because of ObamaCare won’t be used to deny medical procedures outright to those whom don’t vote or donate correctly? Or at least send them to the back of the line?

And people actually laughed at Sarah Palin,  one of the first public figures  smart enough to point this out .

Will ObamaCare survive?  Not if we wish to remain a free people. The 2014 elections will be key in determining whether the law is simply frozen until it can be repealed or whether it eventually morphs into single payer.That is something the American people will decide.

The Colossus of Rhodey: I predict that ObumbleCare will survive — but in a drastically altered form. Let’s face it: The promises made by Boss Obama and his acolytes virtually ALL turned out to be lies. “Keep your doctor?” Yeah, right. (I can see Obama spinning that one: “You CAN keep your doctor. If you lost your coverage, it wasn’t because of a government mandate. Your insurer made that decision on their own!”) “Costs will go down?” A total fantasy for the vast majority of Americans.

If something substantial is not done in the next few months, the 2014 mid-term elections may make 2010 (and 1994) seem pitiful in comparison. The GOP House majority could become prodigious, and the Senate could flip to Republican control, perhaps by a sizable margin. There is almost nothing Boss Obama can do to pin the ObumbleCare disaster on the GOP; he and the-then Democrat controlled House and Senate passed this clusterf*** without a SINGLE Republican vote. Not. One. Obama and the Democrats own this. 100% completely.

I believe that some of the worst aspects of the law will be repealed; that is, unless the Democrats want to get crushed next November. By next summer we’ll see that the employer mandate will be excised, and the individual mandate will as well. What will replace the latter is not for me to say; perhaps Obama will propose some new tax on millionaires and/or corporations to pay for those who need health coverage. But HOW he will do this will be fun to watch given that he NEVER takes responsibility — or apologizes — for anything. Expect much ridiculous spin and blaming of the GOP, the Koch Brothers and, of course, “racism” along the way.

Rhymes With Right:Frankly, I have very little hope regarding ObamaCare. I don’t see it being overturned by the courts, I don’t see it being repealed by Congress, and I don’t see it working anything like it was advertised. The most likely outcome I see will be even worse for America than what is currently enacted into law.

Let’s be honest — the ruling by the Supreme Court in 2012, and the opinion written by John Roberts in particular, were a disaster. The notion that the penalties in the legislation are a tax is completely at odds with the legislative history of the bill (such as it is) and the claims of the Obama Administration. The president and his henchmen admitted as much at the time of the ruling and have continued to do so since then. Based upon admissions made within days of the ruling that the Solicitor General’s office had committed a fraud upon the Court by making the argument that the penalties were taxes and and their arguments that John Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court got the decision wrong, the losing parties in the case should have made an appeal for rehearing under the Supreme Court’s Rule 44. Unfortunately they did not do so, and so it is likely that any future Supreme Court decision will continue to abide by the precedent in place.. At most we will see some nibbling around the edges based upon First Amendment issues and statutory language regarding state vs. federal exchanges, but no judicial flip on the question of constitutionality.

As for repealing ObamaCare, we don’t have the votes in Congress to do it, or even delay it one second longer than Obama wants it delayed for. After all, The Democrats control the Senate, Harry Reid is refusing to run that body in a collegial fashion, and there is no way we can get a veto-proof majority in either house of Congress even if Reid allowed the Senate to consider repeal legislation. That means that Obama can stop any Congressional effort to repeal ObamaCare with a stroke of his pen. The same will be true after the new Congress is seated after the 2014 elections — there is no way the GOP will have the sort of landslide that it would take to get to a veto-proof majority, and without one Obama will still wield the veto pen.

Which leads to the question of the implementation of the law. We’ve already seen that it is a fiasco and will likely continue to be for the foreseeable future. Software doesn’t work, prices are high, and millions are losing the medical insurance they like and the doctors they have been seeing, promises by Barack Obama notwithstanding. By 2016 it will be clear just how big a failure ObamaCare is — but too many Americans will already be dependent upon it. Republicans campaigning on a platform of repealing ObamaCare will be depicted by the Democrats and their media toadies as seeking to “take access to healthcare away from millions of Americans who cannot afford it”. Any Republican plan to replace ObamaCare with something else will be attacked by the lapdog media as even worse than the status quo. And into the fray will step Hillary Clinton and other Democrats who will declare that the failure of healthcare reform was the fault of Republicans who “opposed fixing the system” in 1993, refused to “work with us to care for the poorest Americans” in 2009, and whose efforts to thwart ObamaCare after the passage of the law was nothing short of a program of sabotage responsible for the every unpleasantness experienced by Americans due to ObamaCare’s failure. Their proposal will be nothing less than a single-payer system — perhaps “MediCare for All“. Presuming that the GOP does not manage to pull off a trifecta by holding the House, gaining a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and winning the White House, we will see the passage of a single-payer bill by the end of 2017. Any likely 2016 winner (and no, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Sarah Palin are not likely winners), regardless of party, will sign the resulting legislation on the basis that it will be better than ObamaCare — though I question whether that will prove to be the case over the long term. At that point we will have a federal health care system funded by massive tax increases for all but the poorest quintile.

Do I truly see such a dystopian future? Sadly, I do. The choices of the GOP since the adoption of ObamaCare have brought us to a position where we have failed to stop ObamaCare and are unlikely to find ourselves positioned to undo ObamaCare. The result will be the ultimate success of the sort of single-payer system that the Left has been seeking, the resulting expansion of federal power, and the increasing irrelevance of the Constitution as a blueprint for limited government and maximum individual liberty. The Reaganite vision of my youth will have failed, only to be replaced with an Obamunist state that will collapse within two generations.

The Razor: If you would have asked me four years ago, I would have said the Democrats would never stoop to using a legislative trick, reconciliation, to pass a law without a single Republican vote. Two years later I would have said there was no chance that a conservative supreme court justice would have allowed this mess to pass the test of constitutionality. Now I have to guess what it’s ultimate fate would be? Have you ever watched The Walking Dead? If this legislation doesn’t remind you of a zombie, I’m not sure what law would.

At this point I’m not sure what it would take to kill it, beyond a GOP triple play (owning both houses of Congress plus the White House). One that happens the GOP had better be ready with their own well thought out health care plan to replace this mess with.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Obamacare Becoming Boehnercare? - On The Record… Pull the Plug on Obamacare Rally – Group Demands Speaker Defund Health Care Law [Pictures]

Below are pictures from the “Pull the Plug on Obamacare” rally that took place in Troy, OH on Tuesday, August 27th, 2013.

Video: Defund Obamacare Rally 8-27-2013

By Marion Algier - AskMarion - h/t to MJ for photos

Hundreds attended this event to respectfully tell Speaker John Boehner to do the people’s will and defund Obamacare.

  • Real Clear Politics average polling shows Obamacare is now opposed by a margin of 51% against to 39% in favor (link).
  • Voters in Ohio spoke loudly against the federal government takeover of healthcare by passing the Healthcare Freedom Amendment (HFA) in 2011. The HFA won with 66% of the vote and passed in all of Ohio’s 88 counties.
  • As a check and balance to protect America from tyranny, the founders gave the House of Representatives (or the “People’s House”) control of the purse strings of our nation.
  • The House Speaker controls the “gavel” and the “calendar.” This means he decides who can speak and what bills may be scheduled for a vote. It is fully within John Boehner’s power not to allow ANY bills to the House floor that include money for Obamacare.
  • In September, the House will hold a vote to fund our government. They will either include money to fund the implementation of Obamacare or they will pass a resolution without such funding.
BoehnerCare

Video:  Obamacare Becoming Boehnercare? - Group Demands Speaker Defund Health Care Law - On The Record

Rally Pictures and video…

Marching to Speaker Boehner’s office.

Marching_to_Boehner's_office_4

Marching_to_Boehner's_office_3

Marching_to_Boehner's_office_2

Marching_to_Boehner's_office

Panorama of march to Speaker Boehner’s office

Panorama

At Speaker Boehner’s office.

Exempt_us_too

Boehner's_office_3

At_Boehner's_office_2

Event organizer Janet Porter from Faith 2 Action leading rally attendees in prayer.

Janet_Porter

Crowd_praying

Rally crowd during presentations from speakers.

Rally_Crowd_1

Doc Thompson of The Blaze.

Doc_Thompson_of_the_Blaze

The Blaze photographer.

Blaze_photographer

Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

Former_Secretary_of_State_Ken_Blackwell

Ohio Liberty Coalition President Ted Stevenot

OLC_President_Ted_Stevenot

Pro Obamacare attendees.

Full_pro_Obamacare_crowd

RPV Chairman Pat Mullins Responds to ‘ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion in Virginia’ – A Susan Stimpson Email

Obamacare’s Hierarchy of Privilege

Cruz To Conservatives: “Don’t Blink” – Urges GOP To Fight Obamacare Rollout – On The Record

Obama Taps Former ACORN Lobbyist To Head Obamacare Youth Video Contest…

Time to put an end to special privileges for government officials

Another OBAMACARE PROVISION: "FORCED" HOME INSPECTIONS

Americans petition Congress to Defund Obamacare

Friday, February 22, 2013

Stunner: ObamaCare-supporting Congressman suddenly not so sure you can keep your insurance after all

HotAir/Cross-posted at AskMarion:  Are you as shocked as Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)? Somehow, I rather doubt it, and I don’t think Jason Mattera is as surprised as the front-page pic suggests, either. Confronted with the new CBO analysis that shows more than seven million Americans will lose their present health-insurance coverage from ObamaCare despite his repeated assertions that no one would lose their coverage, Rep. Engel tells Jason in this Andrea Tantaros Show video debuting exclusively at Hot Air that Congress can always go back and fix what’s not working.

Funny — Jason doesn’t recall that being mentioned as an option, and neither do I:

Video: Surprise!  Rep. Eliot Engel Not So Sure About Oba…

Of course, Nancy Pelosi did tell us that we needed to pass the bill to see what was in it. How’s that working out for us? Not so hot, as it turns out, and it’s about to get worse for seniors in Medicare Advantage plans. Avik Roy reminds us that CMS helpfully postponed the deep cuts to the program until after the election so as to remove all of that messy accountability that politicians despise, and “the boom” is coming:

Though Democrats denied it during the 2012 campaign, Obamacare cut Medicare by $716 billion in order to partially fund $1.9 trillion in new entitlement spending over the next ten years. A big chunk of those Medicare cuts came from the market-oriented Medicare Advantage program. Cleverly, the Obama administration postponed the Medicare Advantage cuts until after the election, so as to persuade seniors that everything would be just fine. But the election is over. On Friday, the administration announced that it would be significantly reducing funding for the popular program. Obama’s proposal, according to one analyst, “would turn almost every plan in the industry unprofitable.”

Democrats have long been hostile to the Medicare Advantage program, which allows seniors to get their Medicare coverage through plans administered by private insurers. Today, more than a quarter of retirees get their coverage through Medicare Advantage, and the program has experienced rapid growth over the past decade. Richard Foster, the recently-retired chief actuary of the Medicare program, has projected that Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare Advantage would force half of its current enrollees to switch back to the old, 1965-vintage Medicare program. Robert Book and James Capretta estimate that this will cost enrollees an average of $3,714 in 2017 alone.

The new rates proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a.k.a. CMS, will have the net effect of reducing payments to Medicare Advantage plans by 7 to 8 percent in 2014, according to Citi managed care analyst Carl McDonald. “This includes the 2.3% reduction in per capita growth rate announced by CMS on Friday, and estimated 2-3% drop as rates move to parity with fee for service…a 1.5% reduction associated with the change in coding intensity adjustment” and the 2% health insurance premium tax. “These negatives are partially offset by an estimated 1% benefit from improved Star quality ratings, re-basing, better risk scores, and fee for service normalization, resulting in an overall decline of 7-8%,” wrote McDonald yesterday in a note to clients.

Because the typical for-profit managed care plan targets profit margins of only 5 percent, and non-profits even less, the net consequence would “turn almost every plan in the industry unprofitable,” according to McDonald, unless CMS changes its proposal. “If implemented, these rates and the program changes CMS is suggesting would be enormously disruptive to Medicare Advantage, likely forcing a number of smaller plans out of the business and creating disarray for many seniors.”

B-b-b-b-but if you like your plan, you can keep your plan! That’s what Obama and Democrats like Engel told Americans for months, and even years … until Obama was safely re-elected. Eliot Engel has this message for his constituents (NSFW):

Video:  Animal House – “You F’ed up, you trusted us”

Related:

Senator Rand Paul Speaks Out Against Senators Voting without Reading the Bills

Obama’s Stealth Move Towards Single Payer Healthcare

Senate Conservatives Update

HC Cramdown

Senator Grassley (and Others): Democrats' Want to Nationalize Healthcare

Obama in 2007 Said He Wanted to Eliminate Private Health Insurance

Woman in Oregon Told Healthcare Would Not Pay for Cancer Treatment But Would Pay for Assisted Suicide… Welcome to Government Controlled Healthcare

Review: The New World of ObamaCare

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Did Obama hint at health-care rationing in SOTU?

Video: Obama’s Full 5th SOTU Speech

WND: obama-state-of-the-union-340x161[1]Did President Obama hint at health-care rationing in last night’s State of the Union address?

In his speech, Obama listed health-care reform as a key in reducing long-term government debt, specifically referring to the “rising cost of health care for an aging population.”

“And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms,” he said.

Obama said he will work to “reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors.”

“We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital,” he said. “They should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive.”

Obama’s comments about quality of care deserve careful consideration in light of largely overlooked sections of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare.

Those sections, reviewed in full by WND, may lay the foundations for health-care rationing and even so-called death panels.

There is also concern for preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity and so-called life preferences.

Obamacare called for the establishment of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Obama’s comments:

The new institute’s purpose is to carry out “comparative clinical effectiveness research,” which is defined in the law as evaluating and comparing “health outcomes” and “clinical effectiveness, risks and benefits” of two or more medical treatments or services.

The purpose of the research is purportedly for the government to determine which treatments work best so that money is not spent on less effective treatments.

Such research was already previously funded for $1.1 billion in Obama’s 2009 “stimulus” package. The legislation first created a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Obamacare now allows for about $3.8 billion in additional funding for effectiveness research, with the establishment of the new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The institute is to be governed by a board to assist in identifying research priorities and establishing the research project agenda.

Also weighing in will be an “expert advisory panel” of practicing and research clinicians, patients, and experts in scientific and health services research and health services delivery.

A section of Obamacare makes clear the secretary of health and human services may not use research data from the new institute in a manner that treats the life of an elderly, disabled or terminally ill individual as lower in value than that of an individual who is younger, non-disabled or not terminally ill.

However, that dictate comes with a qualifier some many find troubling.

Obamacare contains largely unreported text that allows the health secretary to limit any “alternative treatments” of the elderly, disabled or terminally ill if such treatments are not recommended by the new research institute.

The qualifier says:

Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as preventing the Secretary from using evidence or findings from such comparative clinical effectiveness research in determining coverage, reimbursement, or incentive programs under title XVIII based upon a comparison of the difference in the effectiveness of alternative treatments in extending an individual’s life due to the individual’s age, disability, or terminal illness.

Paragraph (1)” refers to the section that bars the Health Secretary from valuing the life of an elderly, disabled or terminally ill patient as lower than that of the younger or non-disabled patient.

The qualifier leaves the health secretary with the power to use government-provided research data to determine whether “alternative treatments” are effective in extending the life of the elderly, disabled or terminally ill.

Health-care rationing based on ethnicity?

Another section of Obamacare calls for the new institute to study the effectiveness of treatment in “subpopulations,” including “racial and ethnic minorities, women, age, and groups of individuals with different comorbidities, genetic and molecular sub-types, or quality of life preferences.”

The effectiveness of such research has been widely called into question.

In a 2009 study, the CATO Institute raised concerns about such government-funded research being politicized or influenced by lobbying.

“Unlike market-generated research, a federal comparative-effectiveness agency would be subject to political manipulation, which could block the generation of any useful research,” wrote CATO.

Continued CATO: “Such research necessarily poses a direct threat to the incomes of pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical device manufacturers, and millions of providers. If a government agency produces unwelcome research, those groups will spend vast sums on lobbying campaigns and political contributions to discredit or defund the agency.”

During the “stimulus” debate, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., fought the $1.1 billion spending on effectiveness research, spotlighting the experience of countries such as the U.K. as cautionary tales.

“Think about this a moment,” Kyl told the Senate. “Do you want Washington bureaucrats, such as those who brought you the AIG mess, making your health care decisions for you and your family?”

Currently, in the U.K., the equivalent to Obamacare’s Institute is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE.

The New England Journal of Medicine related that NICE “considers treatments cost-effective if their cost-effectiveness ratio is £20,000 ($34,000) per QALY (quality adjusted life year).”

A QALY is an extra year of “quality” life expectancy, based on the treatment.

There were recent reports that NICE was refusing to fund four new treatments for kidney cancer because they only change a patient’s life expectancy from six months to a year.

Andrew Dillon, NICE chief executive, commented on the denial of one drug for kidney cancer: “Before we recommend any new treatment we have to be sure the evidence on how well it works is robust and that it is cost effective. We do not want to divert NHS funds to a treatment that costs more but doesn’t help people live longer.”

Writing in Forbes last month, Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute, slammed effectiveness research under Obamacare as a “recipe for cook-book medicine, where the government can pressure doctors into prescribing treatments according to average results rather than an individual patient’s needs and preferences.”

Related:

Obama’s Fifth SOTU – State of the Union Speech  -  As well as Rubio and Paul’s Rebuttals

“Death Panel” Three Years Later

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

Who Will Tell Michael J. Fox He Needs to Die?

Death Panels are HERE

On the Road to Death Panels

America – Land of the Mis, Under and Low Informed

Book:  Fool Me Twice: Obama's Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed

Monday, October 29, 2012

Romney During Debate: “I Will Get Rid of Obamacare”

LiveNews.com: During the third and final debate, presidential candidate Mitt Romney repeated his promise that he would work to get rid of Obamacare, the heath care law that prompts abortion funding and rationing concerns.

Romney said: “By the way, number one I get rid of is “Obamacare.” There are a number of things that sound good but, frankly, we just can’t afford them. And that one doesn’t sound good, and it’s not affordable, so I get rid of that one from day one; to the extent humanly possible, we get that out. We take program after program that we don’t absolutely have to have and we get rid of them.”

During the campaign, Romney has repeatedly indicated he would get rid of Obamacare, with his first television ad making that case.

In the October 3 debate, Romney scored points with pro-life voters for making a clear case for repealing Obamacare, the health care law that pro-life advocates have attacked for funding abortions with taxpayer dollars.

“You want it repealed. You want the Affordable Care Act repealed. Why?” moderator Jim Lehrer asked.

“I sure do,” Romney responded.

Well, in part, it comes, again, from my experience. You know, I was in New Hampshire. A woman came to me and she said, look, I can’t afford insurance for myself or my son. I met a couple in Appleton, Wisconsin, and they said, we’re thinking of dropping our insurance, we can’t afford it.

And the number of small businesses I’ve gone to that are saying they’re dropping insurance because they can’t afford it, the cost of health care is just prohibitive. And — and we’ve got to deal with cost.

And, unfortunately, when — when — when you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it’s adding to cost. And as a matter of fact, when the president ran for office, he said that, by this year, he would have brought down the cost of insurance for each family by $2,500 a family. Instead, it’s gone up by that amount. So it’s expensive.

Romney also went after the Independent Payment Advisory Board, the health care rationing board that pro-life advocates repeatedly called for repealing because it would limit life-saving medical treatments.

“We didn’t put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they’re going to receive. We didn’t also do something that I think a number of people across this country recognize, which is put — put people in a position where they’re going to lose the insurance they had and they wanted,” he said.

“So for those reasons, for the tax, for Medicare, for this board, and for people losing their insurance, this is why the American people don’t want Obamacare. It’s why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had — had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside,” he said. “I think something this big, this important has to be done on a bipartisan basis. And we have to have a president who can reach across the aisle and fashion important legislation with the input from both parties.

Related:

Death Panels are HERE

On the Road to Death Panels

ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You're Just Not Worth It

“Death Panel” Three Years Later

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

Obamacare rationing panels an ‘immediate danger to seniors’: former AMA president

“Death Panel” Three Years Later

The Bilderberg Group’s Connection To Everything In The World – Updated

People of Faith

Obama Regulation Czar, Cass Sunstein, Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent

Obama’s "Science Czar" Advocates De-Developing the US to World of Zero Growth

Video: More Scary Stuff From Obama’s Science Czar

Holdren Says Constitution Backs Compulsory Abortion

Holdren: Seize Babies Born to Unwed Women

List of Obama’s Czars Plus Two – Updated: 8.18.09 – Remember when the Czars were the hot topic… but they overwhelmed us and forgot them to do they scary dirty jobs…

Science Czar John P. Holdren – Updated 9.2.09

Meet Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly an Disabled for the Greater Good – But don’t forget… Sarah Palin was crazy…

Complete Lives System by Ezekial Emanuel

ObamaCare… the Kiss of Death - Collection of OBAMA SCARE - Articles U CAN NOT MISS!

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

Obamacare to Herd Disabled Seniors to Bare-Bones Medicaid Plans

"People 70 and over will not be treated under Obamacare… and you thought DEATH PANELS were gone"– Updated

Soylent Green Anyone???

Great Grandmother Mary Allen Hardison: 101-Year-Old Woman Breaks Guinness World Record... Oldest Female to Paraglide Tandem

Go Granny Go!!

Seniors Left Behind?

The 'kill granny' bill

The Return of Mediscare

Checkout: ObamaCare Survival Guide

Friday, October 5, 2012

ObamaCare… the Kiss of Death - Collection of OBAMA SCARE - Articles U CAN NOT MISS!

1. Medical Rationing and the Demise of Patient Confidentiality

2. Obama adviser admits: 'We need death panels'

A top Democrat strategist and donor who served as an adviser to President Obama recently conceded that the rationing of heath services under Obamacare is "inevitable."

3. Hospitals face fines over too many readmitted Medicare patients

Originally Posted: October 1, 2012

4. ObamaCare: The Kiss of Death  -  By J.T. Hatter

Obama Speech to Congress, September 9, 2009

Obama Lied: Health Care Died

In 2009, Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to lay out his program for health care. He unflinchingly told the assembled elected officials one whopper after another, amid a rising chorus of boos and loud grumbling. It got to be too much for Congressman Joe Wilson, of South Carolina, who shouted, "You lie!" to the president as the latter was speaking. Both political parties roundly condemned Wilson for his outburst. He was called a racist, of course, among other things, and he later apologized for his indiscretion. But Joe Wilson was right on the money.

Video:  Rep Joe Wilson… You Lie – Remember this?

Obama lied to the American people when he said that under ObamaCare, the cost for health care would not go up. He said that the middle class would not spend "a single dime" in increased taxes to pay for it, that ObamaCare would actually reduce the federal deficit by the cost savings it would create, that you could keep your current doctor, and that 30 million more people would have health care coverage. None of this was true. And Obama knew that when he made all these claims.

The facts are that Obama and his Democratic Party comrades fudged the numbers, engaged in enormously fraudulent accounting tricks, double-counted Medicare funds, dissembled about what ObamaCare would really entail ("We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."), and completely misinformed Congress and the public about the scope and impact of these new laws and entitlement programs.

But now the facts are beginning to roll in, and the Democrats' health care chickens are coming home to roost. When Obama campaigned in 2008, he said he would reduce health care premiums for families by $2,500 in his first term. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that annual average family insurance premiums have gone up by $2,730 in Obama's first term -- not down. Kaiser currently reports that health premium costs increased 4% this year alone.

Obama told the American people that his health care program would cost "only" 940 billion dollars over ten years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now has rescored ObamaCare and says that the program's gross cost is $1.762 trillion from now to FY 2022. This estimate does not include administrative and other costs, which will add hundreds of billions of dollars more.

The CBO estimate suggests that an offsetting cost reduction of about 0.51 trillion dollars would be realized from receipts from "penalty payments," fees, and increased taxes. According to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, these "penalty payments" are actually taxes. There are twenty new taxes in ObamaCare. Yes, Obama lied about our taxes going up. ObamaCare may be the biggest and most expensive lie told in American history.

Seniors Hurt the Worst

The Romney camp is getting a lot of mileage about the damage ObamaCare does to health care for seniors. Look for Florida to get a blitz campaign on this message. The fact is that senior citizens stand to lose the most from ObamaCare.

Obama and the Democrats robbed 716 billion dollars from Medicare to pay part of the cost of ObamaCare. This severely damaged the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, among others. The MA program allows seniors to receive medical coverage through private insurance plans of their choosing. One of the main thrusts of ObamaCare is to debilitate and eventually eliminate the private health insurance industry. The Democrats' first prize of battle is the MA program, which the Heritage Foundation says will lose an average of $3,714's worth of annual benefits. They expect that ObamaCare will cut MA program enrollment by 50% by 2017. Let me repeat that: ObamaCare will cut MA enrollment by half and reduce benefits for those who can remain in MA. I can't see seniors standing for this.

ObamaCare cuts payments to health care providers and will cause an estimated 15% of Medicare Part A providers to become unprofitable in the next decade. The Heritage Foundation cites the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on this subject as follows:

Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than, and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers' cost of furnishing services to beneficiaries.

ObamaCare is designed to run not only private insurance companies, but also doctors and hospitals out of business.

But the ObamaCare assault on seniors doesn't stop there. ObamaCare places a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices and a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned investment income. Older folks use more medical devices and have more investment income, so these new taxes hurt them directly.

ObamaCare imposes a tax, disguised as a "fee," on brand-name drugs in Medicare and other government programs. Obama has also imposed a new federal excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans the Democrats don't like. The 40% tax is designed to make the premium plans unaffordable to those willing to pay for them, and to punish the wealthy who want them at any cost. ObamaCare beats down seniors in many other ways, and yes, there are death panels -- which will result in health care rationing and worse.

Senior citizens will suffer the most from ObamaCare. However, seniors made up 16% of the electorate in 2008 and went for McCain by 53% to 47%. The Democratic Party regards seniors as "underperformers" in 2008 and is desperately wooing them this year. Seniors currently represent 21% of the vote, and they're not happy with Obama -- for good reason. Wait 'til the Democrats get a peek at the senior vote in 2012.

11_image001

Your New Health Care System
Chart Prepared by the Senate Joint Economic Committee

Health Care Battlegrounds

ObamaCare expands Medicaid, which is a poorly performing, bankrupt federal program that is in severe need of reform and cutting. The Democrats targeted the poor for roughly half of the thirty million uninsured people they said would receive health care coverage under their plan.

Medicaid currently provides for sixty million "poor" people. Obama wants to add 15+ million more. But states are balking at the budget-busting expense for their share of the expanded Medicaid program. And the Supreme Court recently ruled that the federal government couldn't use financial penalties to force the states to comply with Medicaid Expansion requirements. This is a devastating blow to the entire ObamaCare scheme.

At least 13 states have said that they may opt out of the Medicaid program for new patients, and about 20 states are inclined against Medicaid expansion. HealthDay offers this observation,

"I look at the states as the next critical battleground," said Robert Doherty, the American College of Physicians' senior vice president for governmental affairs and public policy. If some states decline to extend Medicaid, the nation will end up with coverage like "Swiss cheese" with holes for "the poorest of the poor," he said.

Obama has created more than just a Medicaid health care battleground in the USA. When Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote upholding most of ObamaCare, it meant that states were supposed to immediately set up the American Benefits Health Exchanges. These health care exchanges are the principle implementing conduit of the law, and they provide the means through which the American people and small businesses will be forced to purchase their federally subsidized and managed health care plans. But what if states refuse to set up these insurance exchanges?

About a dozen states have said they're not going to set up the American Benefits Health Exchanges required under ObamaCare. The federal government has responded by saying that it will come into the states and set up the exchanges if the state governments won't set them up. The Kaiser Family Foundation blithely describes it this way:

If a state fails to set up an Exchange by January 1, 2014, the DHHS Secretary will establish and operate an Exchange in the state, either directly or through an agreement with a nonprofit entity.

Over half the states sued the federal government to stop ObamaCare, saying it was unconstitutional. We lost. And now we have states suing the federal government over implementation requirements, including the insurance exchanges. About half the states are pursuing the requirements for setting up the exchanges. Kathleen Sebelius, the HHS administrator, has admitted that there isn't enough money to set up the exchanges and has gone back to Congress with a request for another billion dollars to get the exchanges rolling. But the House of Representatives isn't coughing up the money. Michael Cannon at the CATO blog says the ObamaCare exchanges just aren't happening.

The battle continues. What an unbelievable mess Obama has made of the American health care system. ObamaCare has created legal battlegrounds all over the country. Several states have passed laws providing that their citizens cannot be required to purchase federal health insurance. Some states are suing over implementation provisions.

Once states start to opt out of the Medicaid Expansion, and refuse to set up or participate in the exchanges, the federal government's only option is to sue the states to force compliance or set up offices in the states and run the programs from Washington. Attorney General Eric Holder and Administrator Kathleen Sebelius will be glad to do this. But will they be around in 2013?

12_image002

Image by Newsbusters

ObamaCare: The Kiss of Death

Obama has failed miserably. He has created a gargantuan abomination of a new federal entitlement program that we can't afford and that won't work. The only certain outcome of ObamaCare is that it will destroy the best health care system in the world.

"ObamaCare Summed Up In One Sentence" is a video of Dr. Barbara Bellar brilliantly dissecting what is wrong with ObamaCare. This video has gone viral across the nation because it resonates with the 65% of Americans who don't want anything to do with ObamaCare.

Video: ObamaCare Summed Up in One Sentence

ObamaCare is blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what John Roberts thinks, and the American people instinctively know this. After the passage of ObamaCare, our government can force us to do anything. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the concept of sovereign states' rights have been thrown out the window. We no longer have constitutional government, nor are we ruled by the consent of the governed. We have an elite ruling class that can legally make us do anything -- thanks to Obama and Justice Roberts.

It isn't merely the cost of the outrageous government takeover of one fifth of the American economy that rankles. It isn't just the fact that ObamaCare is going to take the best health care system in the world and run it into the ground that angers Americans. Obama has engineered a law that gives our government the absolute right to rule every aspect of our lives. Just like they do in communist nations.

Socialist revolutionaries understand that a universal health care system run by the central government is the essential key to transforming the United States into a socialist nation. This has been Obama's true objective all along.

ObamaCare is the kiss of death to democracy, liberty and freedom, and the high-quality health care we have enjoyed in the USA. The main issue in this presidential election campaign isn't about health care or jobs: it's about freedom vs. socialism.

A vote against Obama, and for Romney, is a vote to save health care in America. But more importantly, it is also a vote to save America.

J.T. Hatter is the author of Lost in Zombieland: The Rise of President Zero, a political satire on the Obama administration. JT can be reached at jt@jthatter.com.