Showing posts with label manipulation of seniors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label manipulation of seniors. Show all posts

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There are no prospects for the PPACA being repealed until after 2016.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assertion that once enacted into law entitlements are sacrosanct is incorrect—the long-term care benefit enacted and repealed during the Reagan Administration is an example that comes immediately to mind as does AFDC.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?

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Obamacare Desperation: Meeting With Celebs Who’ll Never Use It To Push It

Pirate’s Cove: And then Hollywood and other entertainment will be surprised when their shows tank because people come to be entertained, not bombarded with political propaganda

(CNN) President Barack Obama, hoping to pitch his signature health care law to younger Americans, will get some help from a cadre of Hollywood stars who have volunteered to help promote Obamacare’s insurance exchanges that open on October 1.

One has to wonder why he and others have to “pitch” it at all. Isn’t it “The Law”? The young folks, who mostly voted “Obama”, have no choice but to either enroll or pay a fine/tax.

At a meeting at the White House Monday, a group that included singer Jennifer Hudson and actors Kal Penn and Amy Poehler heard Obama extol the benefits his health care law offers young people, whose participation in the exchanges is seen as essential for their long-term viability.

“The President stopped by the meeting to engage artists who expressed an interest in helping to educate the public about the benefits of the health law,” a White House official said. “The reach of these national stars spreads beyond the beltway to fans of their television shows, movies, and music – and the power of these artists to speak through social media is especially critical.”

The meeting, which was led by Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, also included representatives for Oprah Winfrey, Alicia Keys, Bon Jovi, YouTube Comedy, Funny or Die and the organizations that put on the annual Grammy and Latin Grammy awards.

Does anyone think that any of these people will actually sign up in the Exchanges themselves? Or do they have their own Cadillac plans?

And when they start pushing O-care people will tune out. The movies and shows with specific liberal politics tend to bomb. No one wants to be patronized, especially by celebs who’ll never enroll in O-care and will do all they can to avoid that “Cadillac tax” on their own high end health insurance plans. If they push this in TV shows, movies, YouTube, you can bet people will avoid those forms of entertainment, particularly since over 50% of the nation is still dead set against Obamacare.

Same goes for the NFL and NBA, along with any other sports, if they decide to push O-care.

Saturday, July 6, 2013

House Launches Investigation Into Obama’s Blatant Political and Illegal Delay of ObamaCare

Well folks… we are being played again!!

JoshuaPundit: With everything else that's going on, this hasn't gotten as much notice as it should. Even the drones at CBS can't conceal what a trainwreck this is. And now the President is simply manipulating things to move past the 2014 midterms, and not even the Obama Media can avoid it.

Oh, one more thing...it's totally illegal.The law does not allow any discretion whatsoever in its timetables. The President is simply taking unprecedented powers - again- while the media covers for him and the Republicans in the House let another opportunity go by.

The truth of the matter is that ObamaCare is truly a poorly thought out piece of legislation. That's because it was shoved through in a quasi-legal fashion using the reconciliation process reserved for budget matters to avoid having to bring the House bill to a confirming vote in the senate after Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts.

The individual provisions of ObamaCare, the taxes, the fines, the obscene diktats - still remain and will kick in 2014. After the midterms, in 2015, you will indeed see massive layoffs and workers thrown out of their company health plans to be forced into ObamaCare health exchanges...which are still in the process of being defined!

One thing we already know is that a minimum coverage Bronze level policy will cost $20,000 per year for a family of five, that rationing will be the new normal and that long waits to see a doctor if you're even allowed to have a procedure will be standard. And amnestia? Any bill that provides amnesty for the 11 to 12 million illegal aliens now in the U.S. and gives them access to Obama Care (and it's difficult to see how they can or should be excluded)is going to exacerbate these problems.

Needless to say, the Leftist elites from President Obama on down who lied to you aren't going to be faced with this choice...they have their own plan that covers themselves and their families that's far cheaper, better and more inclusive.

I agree with talk show host Mark Levin here. Instead of allowing the Prevaricator-in chief to get away with this, what if Boehner(or hopefully someone more articulate) went on television and simply told the American people that they were shutting down the government for a week or however long it takes to slash the money going into ObamaCare to protect their healthcare, to keep their premiums from going up, to allow their employer to keep from laying them off or make them switch to part time work. That President Obama was acting illegally to try and shove through a poorly thought out and highly damaging law, and that the House, with the power of the purse was going to act for the benefit of all Americans by exercising this oversight.

As a matter of fact, the House could have stopped ObamaCare or any of this presidents other serial abuses of power at any time simply by refusing to fund them. But that would have taken courage and  principle.

How long, O Lord?’

Well low and behold… Speaker Boehner with a print out of the ObamaCare Bill… and still growing at his side actually did step up and speak out… just not vehemently enough:

Boehner wi ObamaCare Regulations Thus Far

WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 16: Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) stands next to a printed version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, during a news conference on Capitol Hill May 16, 2013 in Washington, DC. On top of calling for the repeal of Obamacare, Boehner fielded questions from reporters about the Obama Administrations’ subpoena of AP phone records, the IRS scrutiny of conservative political groups’ applications for tax exemption and other issues. Credit: Getty Images

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Republicans finally seized upon the administration’s abrupt delay of the employer mandate in the health care law as fresh evidence that President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy is unworkable and should be repealed, an argument that energizes the party base ahead of 2014 congressional elections. 58% of Americans now want ObamaCare repealed in its entirety.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the administration’s unexpected postponement of a key provision designed to insure more Americans was an admission that the 2010 law is unfeasible. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce’s oversight panel embarked on an investigation of the decision, seeking documents from the Treasury and the Health and Human Services departments.

“House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders today wrote to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, requesting documents and information regarding the administration’s decision to delay full implementation of the health care law’s employer mandate for one year. The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), has held a series of hearings on the president’s health care law and will examine the administration’s delay of the employer mandate in the coming weeks,” read a statement from House Republicans.

But the White House’s willingness to respond to the concerns of business – and avoid the specter of job layoffs due to the unpopular health care law – spares Democrats one political headache in next year’s races.

“The best delay for Obamacare is a permanent one,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Wednesday, hours after the administration announced a one-year delay in requiring businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health coverage for their workers or pay a penalty.

Success in midterm elections depends in large part on turning out the party’s core voters, and Republicans see the latest twist as an opportunity to further vilify the health care law and ignite a GOP base already strongly opposed to Obama’s overhaul. GOP members of Congress pounced on the administration’s decision to make a point they hope will resonate with voters in their states.

“I’ve heard from countless employers in Maine who say that the onerous penalties and provisions in Obamacare provide perverse and powerful incentives to not hire new workers or to cut back on the hours that their employees are allowed to work,” said Senator Susan Collins, who faces re-election next year.

In their strategy for next year’s elections, Republicans were determined to focus on how medium and large businesses would respond to the law’s requirement and the possibility that would translate into job losses. The GOP was ready to place the blame on Democrats who voted for the law if companies had to lay off workers.

The one-year delay to January 2015 largely erases that aspect of the health care criticism in the midterm-election year.

Ken Hoagland, chairman of the conservative Restore America’s Voice and a fierce opponent of the law, said it spares House and Senate Democrats who voted for the law.

“Pushing back the economic damage of Obamacare past the next election won’t change the reality of harm to employees or to the overall economy,” Hoagland said in an interview. “It just seeks to protect those responsible for the legislation.”

Democrats sought to cast the issue as the administration listening to the business community.

“The administration has demonstrated its commitment to implement the Affordable Care Act with increased flexibility for the 4 percent of America’s businesses impacted by the employer responsibility requirement,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Wednesday.

Pelosi argued that a significant majority of businesses already provide health insurance to their employees. The California lawmaker who was instrumental in ensuring the law’s passage when she was speaker of the House insisted that Americans will soon benefit from increased access to affordable health care.

Democrats have always been dogged by the fact that few Americans understand the law and many fear its effect.

In the most recent polling, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that more Americans view the law unfavorably than favorably, a negative tilt that has remained steady since Obama signed it in March 2010. The foundation’s survey this spring found 43 percent with an unfavorable opinion of the law, 35 percent with a favorable view and 23 percent undecided.

The poll also found more people saying the nation will be worse off under the law than better off, a switch from public opinion immediately following its passage.

Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf said Americans opposed to the law remain vehement while other Americans are waiting to see what happens.

The administration’s one-year delay “impacts a very small number. … A lot more people are going to be impacted by their ability to get insurance in the exchanges, removal of pre-existing conditions and by ultimately what the price is going to be. … I think in terms of the `14 elections, I just don’t see this particular decision having much impact.”

Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the Senate Republicans’ campaign committee, called the move “the worst of all worlds for Democratic candidates” because it will frustrate liberals who support the law while doing little to quiet Republican derision.

“What is a Democratic candidate supposed to say in light of this?” Dayspring said. “‘Yes, I supported Obamacare, but thankfully we delayed it to protect you from how bad it is’?”

Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, who won last year in Republican-leaning North Dakota, offered a template for how Democrats could respond when faced with questions about the health care law and the administration’s latest move.

“I have repeatedly said that there is good and bad in the health care law, and we need to improve it. One improvement needed is to make it as simple as possible for our businesses to comply. I applaud the administration for delaying this requirement until there is a system in place that is workable for businesses,” she said in a statement.

Thus far the response from the Obama Administration:

There are people working on alternatives out there… people like Dr. Ben Carson.  Get-involved and educate yourself on this law.

Comments:

desertspeaks

desertspeaks
Jul. 4, 2013 at 10:36am

Avoiding Obamacare! Rescind your signature with social security, and yes it is possible and legal!

Secondly, know that UNLESS you are a naturalized citizen, you are NOT a US CITIZEN! only US CITIZENS are subject to Obamacare!!!
STATUTE AT LARGE to become a US citizen, act of Congress of April 1802, (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, § 1; Rev. St. § 2165 THAT ACT SAYS, and PAY ATTENTION; provides that “an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, AND NOT OTHERWISE!!.”

The following of the act is paraphrased to save room for this to post!

1) That YOU 2 yrs prior to admission absolutely renounced and abjure all allegiance and fidelity “before a court” to any potentate or sovereignty.
2) And had given YOUR intentions to the court to become a U.S. Citizen / SUBJECT of a corporate nature in writing.
There is no other provision of the acts of congress under which YOU could have been naturalized. The Court and public law, did State” AND NOT OTHERWISE.” “which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.” And since the STATUTE AT LARGE, NOT code, says IT SHALL BE RECORDED in fact two.
3) reside “within” the US for 5 yrs, 1 yr in the state or territory where such court is and be a “MAN” of good moral character.
If you haven’t done ALL the above, YOU ARE NOT A US CITIZEN!

Your welcome!

See more comments at TheBlaze

Related: 

Obama Administration Guts Obamacare

5 Effects Obamacare Will Have on Working Americans

McCaughey: Obamacare is About Funding Democrats

California Schools To Train Kids To Sell ObamaCare

Washington Examiner: Kaiser: Most Say Nation Will be Worse Off Under Obamacare

Was Justice Roberts Intimidated Into Voting for ObamaCare?

Mendacity and ObamaCare: "It is better to do this right than fast."

Consequences of ObamaCare Delays

UnitedHealth Leaves California Insurance Market

ObamaCare’s Death Knell

Desperate Congress Realizes They're Getting ObamaCare, Seeks a Waiver

Books: 

ObamaCare Survival Guide  -  Nick Tate

Beating Obamacare  -  Betsy McCaughey

 Obama Health Law  -  Betsy McCaughey

By Marion Algier  -  cross-posted at AskMarion

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Obamacare Architects Rockefeller and Sebelius: Our Bill is Confusing Beyond Comprehension

EIB/RUSH: “Do you think Jay Rockefeller's really gonna go out there and give ammo to the Republicans? No, he's not doing that. They're setting it up for single payer. They're trying to accelerate the public demand for simplicity.”

ROCKEFELLER: I'm of the belief that the ACA is probably the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress. Tax reform, obviously, is gonna be huge, too, but up to this point it's just beyond comprehension.

RUSH: He's one of the architects, folks. Jay Rockefeller's one of the guys whose staff worked on it. So he knows it's beyond comprehension. I'm telling you, this can't work. That doesn't mean it's gonna go away. What it means is it's gonna be a nightmare. What it means is it's gonna be an absolute disaster. And you know what's gonna happen? What always happens in Washington. Washington creates a program because they think there's a pressing need, or in this case, because they just want to commandeer one-sixth of the economy, put it under government control, grow the government, give themselves more power.

So they do that, then that doesn't work, then they run around saying, "My God, we've got a mess here, this is horrible, we need a new program to fix this," and that's what they'll do. They'll come up with Obamacare 2, which will be designed to fix what went wrong in Obamacare 1, but there will never be any acknowledgement that they are the problem. They create the problem. They offer the fix. That doesn't work and the cycle repeats. That's how you end up with redundant federal entitlement programs. That's how you end up with multiple programs for school lunch, school breakfast. Multiple programs for child health care 'cause the first one doesn't work, and the same people who act like they were on the sidelines when it all happens, "Guess what, we need to come in here and fix this." The same people who blew it up the first time go in to fix it, and they blow it up again. He's just warning everybody that's what's ahead of us. It's too late now. It's already off to a bumpy start.

Now, Monday in Boston, Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary, said this about the impact of health care reform.

SEBELIUS: Probably no one fully anticipated when you have a law that phases in over time, how much confusion that creates for a lot of people.

RUSH: What do you mean, no one fully anticipated it? We did. Countless people did. Countless people screamed from the mountaintops that this was a disaster, that this was unworkable, that it was gonna lead to mass confusion. But here comes the sanctimonious arrogance and contempt of the elites. (doing impression) "Well, probably no one fully anticipated when you have a law that phases in over time, how much confusion that creates for a lot of people. No one fully anticipated this, not adequately planned for the rollout, and so everybody ends up being totally confused. It's no fault of anyone's, of course, we just can't anticipate the complexity." Which is all a crock. They don't care at the outset about the complexity.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, ladies and gentlemen, I'll just explain all of this Jay Rockefeller and his complaining about the complexity of Obamacare and Kathleen Sebelius saying that no one accounted for it. Here's the thing, and never forget this. They want it to be complicated. It was supposed to be complicated. It is supposed to be a nightmare. It is supposed to be impossible. Do you know why? So that people will eventually demand single payer to make it simple. Don't doubt me.

This is all part of the plan.

Do you think Jay Rockefeller's really gonna go out there and say something harmful to the Democrat Party? Do you think Jay Rockefeller's really gonna go out there and give ammo to the Republicans? No, he's not doing that. They're setting it up for single payer. They're trying to accelerate the public demand for simplicity. "Let's just get rid of the exchanges! You know, let's get rid of private insurance. Get rid of all that. Get rid of my employer providing insurance. It's too much trouble.

"Just let me go to the government, get the insurance, and be done with it. In fact, when I go to the doctor, the government pays the bill and that's it." That's all this is. This is the original intent. Obama said so in 2007 in a speech to the Service Employees International Union group. He said (paraphrased), "I'd love to get to single payer overnight, but we're not gonna be able to. It's gonna take ten, maybe 15 years until people demand it."

He essentially said to his union buddies, "We can't force this on people. They won't accept it right now. But we can make them want it." How do you do that? You screw it up so badly, you make all the places people go for insurance so screwed up that they will willingly accept it. "You know what? The government will do it and just be done with it," and so that's the objective. Looky here. "The state health exchanges that are central to [Obamacare] are costing the federal government more than twice its initial budget to" implement.

"In its just-released budget, the regime "expects to have spent $4.4 billion in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 on grants to states that are building" the exchanges. A year ago, they estimated spending two billion. This year, they say, "Nah, it's gonna cost four." So the price of the exchanges in one year has already doubled. That's just one tiny little element of this monstrosity. It's where it's all headed.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related:

Obama’s Stealth Move Towards Single Payer Healthcare

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG EMPIRE

The Drug Story

For The Record: Rockefeller Soft Kill Depopulation Plans Exposed

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama is Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle... But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

*Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin (Remember, Sebilius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.)

Friday, July 15, 2011

The Expanding Catalogue of Obamacare Fables

Is there a health insurance horror story disseminated by the White House and its allies that ever turned out to be true? Obamacare advocates have exercised more artistic license than a convention of Photoshoppers. Now, a prominent sob story shilled by President Obama himself about his own mother is in doubt. It's high past time to call their bluffs.

The tall-tale-teller-in-chief cited mom Stanley Ann Dunham's deathbed fight with her insurer several times over the years to support his successful push to ban pre-existing condition exclusions by insurers. In a typical recounting, Obama shared his personalized trauma during a 2008 debate: "For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that."

But there was something fundamentally wrong with Obama's story. In a recently published biography of Obama's mother, author and New York Times reporter Janny Scott discovered that Dunham's health insurer had in fact reimbursed her medical expenses with nary an objection. The actual coverage dispute centered on a separate disability insurance policy.

Channeling document forger Dan Rather's "fake, but accurate" defense, a White House spokesman insisted to the Times that the anecdote somehow still "speaks powerfully to the impact of pre-existing condition limits on insurance protection from health care costs" -- even though Dunham's primary health insurer did everything it was supposed to do and met all its contractual obligations.

No matter. Expanding government control over health care means never having to say you're sorry for impugning private insurers. Democrats have dragged every available human shield into the contentious debate over Obama's federal takeover of health care. Personal anecdotes of dying family members battling evil insurance execs deflect attention from the cost, constitutionality and liberty-curtailing consequences of the law. The president's Dunham sham-ecdote is just the latest entry in an ever-expanding catalogue of Obamacare fables:

-- Otto Raddatz. In 2009, Obama publicized the plight of this Illinois cancer patient, who supposedly died after he was dropped from his Fortis/Assurant Health insurance plan when his insurer discovered an unreported gallstone the patient hadn't known about. The truth? He got the treatment he needed in 2005 and lived for nearly four more years.

-- Robin Beaton. Also in 2009, Obama claimed Beaton -- a breast cancer patient -- lost her insurance after "she forgot to declare a case of acne." In fact, she failed to disclose a previous heart condition and did not list her weight accurately, but had her insurance restored anyway after intense public lobbying.

-- John Brodniak. A 23-year-old unemployed Oregon sawmill worker, Brodniak's health woes were spotlighted by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof as a textbook argument for Obamacare. Brodniak was reportedly diagnosed with cavernous hemangioma, a neurological condition, and was allegedly turned away by emergency room doctors. Kristof called the case "monstrous" and decried opponents of Democrats' health care proposals as heartless murderers. The truth? Brodniak not only had coverage through Oregon's Medicaid program, but was also a neurology patient at the prestigious Oregon Health and Science University in Portland (a safety-net institution that accepts all Medicaid patients). Kristof never retracted the legend.

-- Marcelas Owens. An 11-year-old boy from Seattle, Owens took a coveted spot next to the president in March 2010 when Obamacare was signed into law. Owens' 27-year-old mother, Tiffany, died of pulmonary hypertension. The family said the single mother of three lost her job as a fast-food manager and lost her insurance. She died in 2007 after receiving emergency care and treatment throughout her illness. Progressive groups (for whom Marcelas' relatives worked) dubbed Marcelas an "insurance abuse survivor." But there wasn't a shred of evidence that any insurer had "abused" the boy or his mom. Further, Washington State already offered a plethora of existing government assistance programs to laid-off and unemployed workers like Marcelas' mom. The family and its p.r. agents never explained why she didn't enroll.

-- Natoma Canfield. The White House made the Ohio cancer patient a poster child for Obamacare in 2010 after she wrote a letter complaining about skyrocketing premiums and the prospect of losing her home. After Obama gave Canfield a shout-out at a health care rally in Strongsville, Ohio, and promised to control costs, officials at the renowned Cleveland Clinic, which is treating her, made clear that they would "not put a lien on her home" and that she was eligible for a wide variety of state aid and private charity care.

Since Obamacare passed, the amount workers pay in health care premiums has soared an average of nearly 14 percent; thousands of businesses have sought waivers in search of relief from the law's onerous mandates; medical device makers have slashed jobs and research; and the private individual health insurance market is in critical condition. Post-Obamacare truth is bloodier than pro-Obamacare fiction.

By Michelle Malkin Posted on TownHall

Related:

Turns Out Obama’s Story About His Mother’s HealthCare Struggle Is Inaccurate

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Dirty Little Secret: Rationing is at Heart of ObamaCare

There is a dirty secret about health care that President Obama hopes will escape the headlines. In his newly released plan to “reform” Medicare as part of overall deficit reduction, Obama has punted actual cost-cutting and instead proposed a panel – the Independent Payment Advisory Board – to recommend savings for the financially doomed program. Translation: Welcome to the world of rationing.

The board, which was an original part of Obamacare (remember the death panel debate?), consists of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will have unchecked, binding power in the interest of supposedly greater efficiency and lower costs. That means that instead of you or your doctor making decisions about your care, a group of Washington micromanagers will do it for you.

Oh, and the rationing panel will be immune to lawsuits. According to The New York Times, “In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations.”

The panel is one of the scariest policy moves made by this administration and is the epitome of government interference in our lives at the most personal of levels. If you’re not eligible for Medicare, you will be one day, which is why everyone should be very afraid of what’s to come when the panel starts its work in 2014 with a report to the President. Though defenders claim that Obamacare bars rationing, the panel will do just that.  (Full Story Below)

The fate of the elderly, the sick and the disabled depends on the findings of President Obama's proposed panel that will recommend savings for financially doomed Medicare.

There is a dirty secret about health care that President Obama hopes will escape the headlines. In his newly released plan to “reform” Medicare as part of overall deficit reduction, Obama has punted actual cost-cutting and instead proposed a panel – the Independent Payment Advisory Board  – to recommend savings for the financially doomed program. Translation: Welcome to the world of rationing.

The board, which was an original part of Obamacare (remember the death panel debate?), consists of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will have unchecked, binding power in the interest of supposedly greater efficiency and lower costs. That means that instead of you or your doctor making decisions about your care, a group of Washington micromanagers will do it for you.

They will do this by cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and restricting patients from costly end-of-life care by enforcing caps on how much a patient can spend to stay alive. Most at risk will be the disabled, who require special and often expensive care. Cancer patients will be at risk, as well, since chemotherapy and other oncological treatments are some of the priciest.

In fact, there is very little Congress will be able to do to stop the panel. It will only be able to block its rulings with a two-thirds vote to override an expected presidential veto.

In the past, Obama has hinted that we'll need a way to address these patients. "The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80% of the total health care bill out here," he said shortly after taking office. "There is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place."

But there was no real conversation. Democrats inserted the rationing panel into the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare), and when the opposition tried to draw attention to the risks involved by invoking rationing, they were branded by the left and the mainstream media as crazies.

But this is far from fantasy. In fact, it's already reality across the pond.

In many ways, Obama and congressional Democrats copied the British, who have a similar model called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. According to The Wall Street Journal, the acronym is quite the oxymoron when one looks at what passes for standard practice: "NICE has rejected a number of pricey drugs for cancer and other diseases in the past. . . . Sometimes NICE rejects drugs for all patients with the disease, and sometimes just for patients with a specific form of the disease, where the efficacy doesn't appear to justify the price. NICE's decisions often anger patients, their families and drug companies."

Most recently, NICE made the decision to deny the use of several new drugs to treat chronic leukemia patients. This showcases how deficit savings will be achieved under Obama's plan.

First, it's baffling to me that with countless government health officials on the federal payroll, nobody has been able to definitively figure out how to save Medicare from fiscal ruin. But somehow, these 15 Independent Payment Advisory Board pencil pushers will do the trick? Unless Superman, Wonder Woman and the Flash are entering the world of public service, there is no reason to believe that the same bureaucrats who got us into this mess will be able to solve the problem simply because they've joined a newly created panel.
It does, however, give Washington air cover. Just like in England, when the panel makes a controversial decision, lawmakers will be cleared of any direct involvement, claiming they aren't responsible for cutting your mother's cancer treatments.

In fact, there is very little Congress will be able to do to stop the panel. It will only be able to block its rulings with a two-thirds vote to override an expected presidential veto.

Oh, and the rationing panel will be immune to lawsuits. According to The New York Times, "In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board's recommendations."

So, to break it down: Democrats are against limits on private-sector lawsuits but are in favor of preventing patients from suing government bureaucrats. But if this rationing panel has been designed to be so efficient and good at its job, as the President and his administration claim, then why do Democrats fear litigation in the first place?

Even some on the left are unsettled about Obama's solution to lowering the deficit through a medical panel with frighteningly unchecked powers. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a notorious liberal, said this of Independent Payment Advisory Board-style rationing: "In its effort to limit the growth of Medicare spending, the board is likely to set inadequate payment rates for health care providers, which could endanger patient care."

It could also lead to a doctor shortage. If the panel cuts reimbursements to physicians, they will simply stop treating Medicare patients, thus forcing patients to purchase their own health care. Already, "Obamacare's passage has led as many as two-thirds of physicians to drop out of government-run health programs," reports the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

The panel is one of the scariest policy moves made by this administration and is the epitome of government interference in our lives at the most personal of levels. If you're not eligible for Medicare, you will be one day, which is why everyone should be very afraid of what's to come when the panel starts its work in 2014 with a report to the President. Though defenders claim that Obamacare bars rationing, the panel will do just that.

Donald Berwick, the President's controversial Medicare administrator, already stated that "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

Although Obama and many congressional Democrats are hoping the complexity of the Independent Payment Advisory Board will keep people from paying attention, our eyes must be open, too. The fate of the elderly, the sick and the disabled depends on it.
andrea@andreatantaros.com

Andrea Tantaros, whose column appears on Thursdays on NYDailyNews.com and often in the print edition of the newspaper, is a political commentator as well as a corporate communications executive. She previously served as a senior adviser on a number of political campaigns and as communications director for former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld and Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-N.Y.) and on Capitol Hill as press secretary for Republican leadership. Tantaros lives in New York City.

By ANDREA TANTAROS

The Dems, the White House and the media are trying to scare seniors about the Ryan Plan.  It is another diversion.  The real issue is the rationing or death panel headed by Donald Berwick that Sarah Palin and a few others warned us about and then were demonized by the same people who are hiding true facts of ObamaCare from you, until it is too late! Take it from someone who read as much of every version as possible during the ObamaCare battle… the panel and rationing are in there along with many other scary provisions.  And a vote to re-elect Obama is a final vote to destroy America’s healthcare as well as freedom!