Our nation's debt is literally indenturing our children to our international debt holders, but most Americans don't care because they are more concerned about the latest saga involving Snooki on Jersey Shore rather than what really matters, our country’s future.
Showing posts with label obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obamacare. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Obama Administration Seeks to Circumvent Congressional Authority to Fix ‘Obamacare Glitch’ | TheBlaze.com

I guess Pelosi wasn't kidding when said you get to read the bill after it passed ...

Here’s an idea: when the Supreme Court holds their five-hour long oral arguments on The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, perhaps they could discuss what Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon of the Wall Street Journal refer to as ”a major glitch that threatens its basic functioning.”

The two authors even claim that the aforementioned “glitch” is so huge that the Obama administration is trying to fix it by rewriting the bill without involving Congress.

What’s the “glitch”? Adler and Cannon explain:
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act offers “premium assistance”—tax credits and subsidies—to households purchasing coverage through new health-insurance exchanges. This assistance was designed to hide a portion of the law’s cost to individuals by reducing the premium hikes that individuals will face after ObamaCare goes into effect in 2014. (If consumers face the law’s full cost, support for repeal will grow.)

The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange.

This is where the glitch comes in: ObamaCare authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges (Section 1311) but not federal ones (Section 1321). In other words, states that refuse to create an exchange can block much of ObamaCare’s spending and practically force Congress to reopen the law for revisions.

The Obama administration wants to avoid that legislative debacle, so this summer it proposed an IRS rule to offer premium assistance in all exchanges “whether established under section 1311 or 1321.” On Nov. 17 the IRS will hold a public hearing on that proposal. According to a Treasury Department spokeswoman, the administration is “confident” that offering premium assistance where Congress has not authorized it “is consistent with the intent of the law and our ability to interpret and implement it.”

As the authors point out, the bill‘s supporters shouldn’t be that confident. The text of the law is pretty clear. Furthermore, without Congressional authority, the IRS is impotent in regards to dispensing credits or spending money.

But there’s always the question of “Congressional intent,” right?

“Law professor Timothy Jost suggests that since ObamaCare requires all exchanges to report information about premium assistance, and it would be silly to impose that requirement on federal exchanges if their enrollees were not eligible, that shows Congress could not have intended anything but to provide assistance in federal exchanges,” the Journal reports. “At least, he argues, there‘s enough ambiguity here about Congress’s intent that federal courts will permit the administration to resolve it.”

Contrary to what is stated in the above, Adler and Cannon point out that the Supreme Court has limited such deference to cases where the text of the law, rather than intent, is ambiguous. In the case of the health care bill, the language is quite clear.

 
Obama Administration Seeks to Circumvent Congressional Authority to Fix ‘Obamacare Glitch’ | TheBlaze.com

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Another consequence of Obamacare raises the cost of medicines

I have personally never used my FSA to buy OTC's medicines because the simple fact of the matter is that my family always uses the max allowable either for co-pays or the dentist. However, for people like my parents who take a baby asprin each day for heart conditions the fact that they now need to get a prescription is idiotic. This new policy raises a few questions related to the implementation of this law. How does the IRS intend to enforce this provison of the law? Will people be required to file their prescriptions with their tax returns? Will the pharmacy need to keep track of the precriptions for OTC drugs so that a person can use the FSA debt card? In the end this is just another example of how stupid the new healthcare law is and why it needs to be defunded (repeal would be nice but almost impossible to do).

New Rules Coming for Payments Out of Health Savings Accounts

Under the new health care law, consumers using workplace pre-tax health savings accounts will soon need a doctor's note to pay for Tylenol and an estimated 15,000 other over-the-counter drugs.

Starting Jan. 1, employees who use flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health saving accounts (HSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) to pay for common medications such as pain relievers, cold medicines, antacids and allergy medications will need prescriptions. The new rules don't apply to insulin.

The new rules will also prohibit the use of FSA or HRA debit cards provided by administrative plans for over-the-counter purchases, because the IRS says there's no way to prove the drugs were prescribed.

The IRS says any money removed from HSA accounts to pay for medical expenses bought without a prescription will be included as taxable income and subject to an additional tax of 20 percent.

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry lobby that voiced support for the overhaul but has been accused by some of the law's proponents of trying to undermine it, said the law creates "unintended consequences."

"It creates unnecessary hassles for consumers and provides the wrong kind of incentives," Zirkelbach said, adding that the changes could make it more difficult for consumers to get medicines they need at costs they can afford.

"This change could have the unintended consequence of increasing health care costs," he said. It might provide an incentive for consumers to go back on more expensive medications when over-the-counter medicine works just fine."

More than 10 million consumers use HSAs, according to a survey done in January by AHIP. That's up from 8 million in 2009 and 6.1 million in 2008.

According to an analysis by benefits administrator Aon Hewitt of more than 220 employers covering more than 6 million workers, 20 percent of employees, or 1.2 million, contributed to an FSA in 2010. Of those workers, the average annual contribution is $1,441.

FSAs and HSAs allow workers to reduce their taxable income to pay for qualified health care or child care expenses. Anyone with a high-deductible medical insurance plan can obtain an HSA. The IRS defined a high-deductible plan in 2010 as $1,200 a year for individuals and $2,400 for families.

FSAs, which were first authorized by Congress in 1978, are only available through employers who offer the plans. But FSAs face another new rule under the Affordable Care Act -- a limit on the pre-tax contributions to $2,500, starting Jan. 1, 2013. There is currently no limit on how much an employee can contribute to FSAs, although employers can impose one.

Lawmakers imposed the cap to help pay for provisions that will expand coverage starting in 2014. The cap is expected to raise $13 billion for other government-provided health care services offered between 2013 and 2019.

Friday, April 9, 2010

The Massachusetts Insurance Blackout - Insurers go on strike after Deval Patrick imposes price controls

This week it became impossible in Massachusetts for small businesses and individuals to buy health-care coverage after Governor Deval Patrick imposed price controls on premiums. Read on, because under ObamaCare this kind of political showdown will soon be coming to an insurance market near you.

The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Mr. Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90% of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve. Health costs have run off the rails since former GOP Governor Mitt Romney and Beacon Hill passed universal coverage in 2006, and Mr. Patrick now claims price controls are the sensible response to this ostensibly industry greed.


If you are even a little bit surprised you need to get your head out of your a**. Welcome to the future of Healtcare in America. The best part of the editorial though is the following:

One irony is that Mr. Patrick's own Attorney General and his insurance regulators have concluded—to their apparent surprise—that the reason Massachusetts premiums are the highest in the nation is the underlying cost of health care, not the supposed industry abuses that Mr. Patrick and his political mentor President Obama like to cite.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Companies’ Charges Prompt a Hearing

Why should we surprised that the Democrats are calling fortune 500 companies on the carpet. All they will do is yell at the CEOs and belittle them and blame them for all of societies problems. What we won't hear in these hearings is how we can help these companies relocate their overseas production facilities to the U.S. or what these companies need to get more workers working.


By Elizabeth Williamson

Even before AT&T Inc. said Friday that it will take a $1 billion charge in the first-quarter because of the new health-care law, the issue was front-and-center with key lawmakers.

Earlier this week, Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co., and AK Steel Holding Corp. announced their own hefty one-time charges.

Almost immediately, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman of California and Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, chairman of the Oversight and Investigations panel, announced plans to hold an April 21 hearing on “claims by Caterpillar, Verizon, and Deere that provisions in the new health care reform law could adversely affect their company’s ability to provide health insurance to their employees. These assertions appear to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs.”

The committee wants the companies’ CEOs testify and provide evidence of the law’s projected impact.


Friday, January 8, 2010

From the WSJ: Medicare and the Mayo Clinic- The famous hospital will no longer take some senior patients

Earlier this week the famous Mayo Clinic stated that it would no longer me accepting some Medicare patients. The reason they gave is very simple, they can't afford it anymore. The Mayo Clinic lost $840 Million last year because of the rates medicare reimburses for services. Now remember part of the new healthcare plan is that they plan to cut $500 Billion in medicare costs over the next decade to save money so they can spend it on Obamacare. So if private hospitals are losing money already what happens when they get reimbursed even less over the next decade. The end result is that we are all going to have to either bailout the Healthcare Industry or just take it over like Frannie and Freddie. We need good solutions to keep healthcare costs down but the garbage coming out of Washington is only going to make it worst.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703436504574640711655886136.html

FOXNews.com - C-SPAN CEO: Obama Used Us as 'Political Football'

Yes, CSPAN was used as a Political Football by Obama but the American people are the ones taking it up the A**.

FOXNews.com - C-SPAN CEO: Obama Used Us as 'Political Football'

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Open Letter to Congress To Stop Healthcare Reform

Below is the letter I sent to my Senators and Congressman. I urge you to let your represenatives know how you feel about the $900 billion being spent on healthcare reform.

Dear Senator/Congressman,

I urge you to please support real heath care reform and not the nonsense that is currently being discussed in the House and the Senate.

1. Allow private individuals to deduct 100% of any costs related to medical expenses.
2. Allow Doctors/Hospitals to deduct the full cost of services (using the applicable Medicare formula) that are preformed free of charge for all indigent patients or those who are unable to afford insurance.
3. Stop States from dictating what procedures and tests must be covered by an insurance plan and then preventing people from purchasing insurance for other states.
4. Eliminate federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
5. Give doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
6. Make every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
7. Enact real Tort Reform for medical malpractice.

Currently the legislation contemplated in the House and Senate is estimated to cost $900 Billion dollars. During good times this type of legislation would be fiscally irresponsible but in a recession it is completely unacceptable. In order to keep the cost for these new programs under $900 Billion the CBO has done some very creative math, which we usually only see on Wall Street right before we have a market crash or a company files for bankruptcy. Most of these new programs do not start until July 1, 2013. Why make the American people wait so long if this is so urgent it needs to be done before the end of this year? Because when CBO estimates how much a piece of legislation is going to cost, it only looks at the next 10 years. By waiting four years to start the expensive parts they make it look less expensive, without it being any less expensive. This preliminary analysis looks at 2010-2019. It doesn't take much more than third grade math to see why starting programs in 2013 (also everyone in Congress will have been reelected before this legislation goes into effect) artificially manipulates the cost estimate. A close observer will also note that one of the most consistent changes in the new draft of the Baucus summary is shifting many start dates from January 1, 2013 to July 1, 2013--cutting 6 extra months of costs out of the CBO estimate. A quick calculation says that if this bill costs $829 billion from mid-2013 through 2019, that's actually about $1.3 trillion over 10 years ($829/78 months = ~$10.6 billion/month x 120 months).

Reading further, there are several other red flags present in the CBO analysis. Enactment of the Baucus approach will add approximately $900 billion to the federal budget. That money will have to come from somewhere. Half of it will come from massive cuts in Medicare Advantage, while the other half will be generated by new taxes on high-end insurance, higher income taxes, and new levies on drugs and innovative medical devices. There are a variety of provisions in the bill designed to generate revenue, including $426 billion in Medicare and Medicare Advantage benefit cuts, $4 billion in new fines imposed on those who do not purchase insurance (fining people who can’t afford insurance makes absolutely no sense and if the person can afford the fine then let them live with the costs for not choosing to get heath insurance), $201 billion in new levies on health insurance companies with high-end health insurance plans, $180 billion in new taxes on medical devices and drugs (including breast milk pumps), $83 billion in new income taxes on individuals, and $25 billion in new taxes on employers.

There will also be significant reductions in Medicare reimbursements to hospitals, which will in turn generate more cost shifting from such facilities to the patients using them. Although Congress is likely to revisit this issue after passage of the Bill much as they are today trying to stop the 21% drop in Medicare payments to Doctors scheduled to occur in January, which were originally enacted to cut the cost of Medicare. Senate Democrats are proposing to upend that arrangement and instead freeze doctor payments at this year's level for the next decade. They seek to do so in a bill -- separate from the overhaul legislation -- that they said would shore up the government health program for the elderly. The cost to just freeze Medicare payments at current levels is -- $247 billion over 10 years. If inflation continues at 3% annual, as it generally does unless the recession turns into a depression, what type of Doctor is going to see Medicare patients in 2015 when all of his own living expenses; food, fuel, housing and his own medical insurance have risen but not his pay. Even Congress gets a pay raise (2.8% in 2009) even though unemployment is at a 25 year high and people are losing their homes daily to foreclosure but I digress.

The government programs that provide health care to the poor would expand to cover nearly one in five Americans under health insurance legislation pending in Congress, putting pressure on federal and state budgets. Medicaid, one of the fastest-growing government programs for two decades, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program would grow from about 50 million people today to more than 60 million in 2019, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office and Kaiser Family Foundation. That would be the biggest single expansion since Medicaid was created in 1965. The expansion is designed to cover the poorest adults among the nation's 46.3 million uninsured. It would change a program aimed mostly at children, people with disabilities and elderly nursing home residents into one that includes more low-income parents and, for the first time in 45 states, adults without children.

Medicaid grew in the 1990s as children ages 6 to 18 were added. Now adults would be covered up to 133% of the federal poverty line, or about $14,440 for individuals. The federal government paid $258 billion for Medicaid in 2009, about 57% of total costs, but would pay 90% of the expansion. States would pay about $33 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Most of the 14 million adults who would be added over the next decade lack insurance and get health care at emergency rooms and community health centers. The federal government pays some of that cost, but hospital payments would be reduced. Most of the costs to cover the uninsured are absorbed by the facilities or passed on by insurers to employers and employees in the form of higher premiums. Because new Medicaid beneficiaries would use more health care services than they do now, government costs would increase.

• Can states afford it? Medicaid already consumes about 22% of state budgets, and 13 million people are eligible but not enrolled.
• Can states handle the expansion? Fourteen states, half of them in the South, only accept parents at less than 50% of the poverty level, so the expansion would be vast. Aging computer systems used to set eligibility may not be up to the task.
• Will there be enough doctors? Many parts of the country already face an acute shortage of general practitioners, 35% of whom did not accept new Medicaid patients last year. House legislation would require states to raise Medicaid payment rates to doctors, but Senate legislation would not.

New Jersey has a projected budget gap of nearly $8 Billion for 2011. We can no longer afford these types of social programs. I urge you to please reconsider your positions on health care reform. If you truly believe that the bills pending in Congress are the solution then please increase taxes to cover the full costs of these measures. We can no longer afford to borrow money. We must learn that things cost money and that the Federal Reserve is not a piggy bank. My children’s’ futures are in your hands.

Regards,

Friday, October 9, 2009

Health Care Speechwriter for Edwards, Obama & Clinton Without Insurance Now -- Politics Daily

While I don't agree with the writer's thoughts that Medicare for all would be a good plan, she makes some very compelling arguments. I hope that people will make up and realize that we need reform to the healthcare system not a whole new government system.


Health Care Speechwriter for Edwards, Obama & Clinton Without Insurance Now -- Politics Daily

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Opps- Obama Caught Handing Out Lab Coats to Dr.s in Photo Op


From the NY Post- Obama had a photo op yesterday with Doctors that support healthcare reform but just to make sure that we, the stupid masses, knew they were doctors he gave them a free lab coat. I wondered if they were embroidered with the Presidential Seal. Quite a nice gift don't you think.




White House's botched 'op'
By CHARLES HURT, Post Correspondent

Last Updated: 10:59 AM, October 6, 2009

Posted: 3:05 AM, October 6, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Obama yesterday rolled out the red carpet -- and handed out doctors' white coats as well, just so nobody missed his hard-sell health-care message.

In a heavy-handed attempt at reviving support for health-care reform, the White House orchestrated a massive photo op to buttress its claim that front-line physicians support Obama.

PHOTOS: OBAMA'S BOTCHED PHOTO OP

OBAMA LIFTS HEALTH CARE ADDRESS -- FROM HIMSELF

A sea of 150 white-coated doctors, all enthusiastically supportive of the president and representing all 50 states, looked as if they were at a costume party as they posed in the Rose Garden before hearing Obama's pitch for the Democratic overhaul bills moving through Congress.

The physicians, all invited guests, were told to bring their white lab coats to make sure that TV cameras captured the image.

But some docs apparently forgot, failing to meet the White House dress code by showing up in business suits or dresses.

So the White House rustled up white coats for them and handed them to the suited physicians who had taken seats in the sun-splashed lawn area.

All this to provide a visual counter to complaints from other doctors that pending legislation is bad news for the medical profession.

"Nobody has more credibility with the American people on this issue than you do," Obama told his guests.

The president was flanked by four white-coated doctors at a podium as he delivered his pep talk.

"When you cut through all the noise and all the distractions that are out there, I think what's most telling is that some of the people who are most supportive of reform are the very medical professionals who know the health-care system best," the president said.

"I want to thank every single doctor who is here," Obama said. "And I especially want to thank you for agreeing to fan out across the country and make the case about why this reform effort is so desperately needed."

Underlying the strictly photo-op nature of the event, The Associated Press noted that Obama broke no new ground in his remarks.

The president told the doctors that if they back him, "I'm confident we are going to get health reform passed this year."

The Republican National Committee shot back with a response from Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), who was an orthopedic surgeon before being elected to Congress.

"Today, the president wants you to believe that the medical community supports his government takeover of health care. Don't be fooled," Price said.

He said he had spoken to "thousands of my colleagues" who oppose the Democrats' legislation.

House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) said large numbers of doctors fear it would cripple their ability to care for patients.

"Members of the medical community -- who deal with red tape day in and day out -- rightly recognize that the Democrats' government takeover would weaken the doctor-patient relationship that is so critical to making the right health-care decisions," he said.

Obama made no mention of the "public option" -- a controversial government-run insurance plan favored by liberal Democrats -- in his Rose Garden spiel.

A key version of the legislation, which doesn't include the public option, is expected to reach the Senate floor for debate later this month.

churt@nypost.com

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Democrats stifle Republican health care plans | Washington Examiner

Why am I not surprised that the NYT or WP or MSNBC or CNN has not covered these proposals. If the Democrats would read the polls they would find out that the Republican bills are exactly the types of changes to healthcare that Americans want to occur. We do not want or need socialized medicine and most of Europe no longer wants it either. We are broke people. We don't even fully fund medicare and medicaid right so how are we going to pay for everyone's healthcare. Sure we can borrow some more money but in case you haven't noticed the Chinese are more interested in gold than treasuries. Plus the annointed one just started a trade war with a country we owe an awful lot of money to and who we rely upon for all those cheap goodies we buy at the store everything from tvs to pencils. Sure free healthcare for all would be nice but so would a free house, a free car, free food, and free cloths just ask the Soviets how that worked out.


Democrats stifle Republican health care plans | Washington Examiner

Monday, August 17, 2009

While Its True There Is No Death Board Yet- This Is What We Will Get If ObamaCare Is Passed

Now I have to be honest I really don't feel too bad for this woman. She was a lifelong smoker and surprise surprise she got lung cancer. The fact is that we all have to take personal responsibility for our actions because they have consequences but this story illustrates the constraints put on healthcare when the Government is involved.

This woman has terminal cancer and her previous medical treatment has been unsuccessful in defeating the cancer. She receives her health insurance from the State of Oregon and they have decided that a $5,000 a month treatment that doesn't give her more than a 5% survival rate after five years is too expensive so they instead sent her information on physician assisted suicide, which is legal in Oregon.

This is an example of the so called "death panel" in affect today. So when you hear the MSM say the death panels are myths please tell you friends about this woman. In the future its not going to be the 60 year old smoker that is being offered the physician assisted suicide but rather a developmentally disabled child with a terminal illness who the state has concluded is not worth the cost of further medical treatment.


Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon - ABC News

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Healthcare Is a Good, Not a Right- by Ron Paul

We all know nationalized healthcare doesn't work. If it worked why then are the wealthy in Canada and Europe coming to the U.S. for their heathcare. Ron Paul is a doctor and I believe his bill would bring healthcare costs down.

Healthcare Is a Good, Not a Right

Monday, July 20, 2009

Universal Heathcare Its Not All Its Cracked Up To Be

Canada currently has both free heathcare and cheap prescription drugs. Our politicians in Washington believe that we need to change the way Americans receive healthcare so that we can be more like Canada. After watching this video do you want to be like Canada?