SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (34718)7/6/2010 6:28:57 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Poll: 60% Want ObamaCare Repealed

By Mark Noonan on Rasmussen

So much for the DNC talking point that ObamaCare is getting more popular:

<<< Sixty percent (60%) of voters nationwide favor repeal of the recently passed health care law, including 49% who Strongly Favor repeal.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 36% oppose repeal. That figure includes 24% who are Strongly Opposed… >>>

The big question: is the GOP really listening? We need to actively campaign on a repeal of ObamaCare. Highlight its horrors and the corruption surrounding its passage, while offering a replacement which will actually put people in charge of their own health care. On this issue as on immigration, the conventional wisdom that the GOP should stay away is wrong – the people are not open to our views, but are actually marching far ahead of where the GOP plan is.

Liberalism thought it has won another 60 years of political dominance in 2008 – that was a crucial error. They could have got it, had they moderated their plans and worked with the center – but, they went flat out and have now discovered that the tilt to the left was in response to GOP failure, not support for liberal plans.

We have to hammer them – every day; liberalism is becoming political kryptonite again.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)7/8/2010 3:20:57 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Barrasso slams Berwick appointment: Obama ‘intentionally’ misled

07/07/10 6:10 PM EDT

Senator John Barrasso, a leading spokesman for congressional Republicans on health care issues, today accused President Barack Obama of “intentionally misleading” the country and Congress by appointing Donald Berwick to run the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. The White House yesterday announced that Berwick would receive a “recess appointment,” which allows the president to put a nominee in place without Senate confirmation.

“This appointment shows incredible arrogance on the part of the president and it makes a mockery of his promise to run a transparent administration,” said Barrasso, an orthopedic surgeon from Casper, Wyoming.

Barrasso repeatedly urged Obama to appoint someone to head CMS during the year-long health care debate that ended this past spring. In an interview this afternoon, Barrasso said that Congress did not yet even have all of the paperwork to conduct a hearing on the nomination. The Obama administration, he argues, planned to recess-appoint Berwick from the beginning in order to avoid a public debate over Berwick’s radical views. Barrasso says of Obama: “I think this was his intention all along.”

Barrasso and other Republicans have criticized Berwick since he was first mentioned for the CMS job. They point to his writings in favor of health care rationing and in praise of Britain’s state-run National Health Service (NHS).
“I think the NHS is one of the great human health care endeavors on earth,” he said in a 2005 speech. “It can be an example for the whole world — an example, I must say — that the United States needs now more than most other countries do.”

Over the course of the health care debate, Democrats dismissed and even mocked those who described White House proposals as socialized medicine or a step toward a single-payer system.

Berwick has also long advocated a single-payer system, writing as far back as 1996 that “a single-payer mechanism” was “the only sensible approach to health care finance I can think of.” More recently, Berwick said: “If I could wave a wand…health care [would be] a common good-single payer, speaking for and buying for the common good.”

Not surprisingly, Berwick has expressed skepticism of market-driven health care and market-focused reforms. “Please don’t put your faith in market forces,” Berwick wrote in 2008. “It’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can. I find little evidence that market forces relying on consumers choosing among an array of products, with competitors fighting it out, leader to the health care system you want and need.”

The White House claims that likely Republican opposition to Berwick left the president no choice but to offer him a recess appointment. And there’s no question that Republicans were eager to have an opportunity to grill Berwick in confirmation hearings and, quite possibly, seek to block his nomination. But in a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius three weeks ago, Senator Pat Roberts, a fellow Kansan, wrote that while he would “thoroughly vet this nominee…it is my sincere hope that you and I can cooperate throughout this process to insure that Kansans and all patients, especially our seniors, are protected from government rationing.”

By offering Berwick a recess appointment now, the White House is circumventing the entire process — shielding Berwick from having to answer for his views, which Barrasso describes as “far out of the mainstream.”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)7/14/2010 1:38:30 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Did you know the Dutch recently tried Obamacare? Or that it has failed?

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
07/13/10 12:41 PM EDT

Here's an amazing fact that somehow escaped me during the long months of the Obamacare debate - the Dutch tried a government-run health care reform program quite similar to the Obama plan starting in 2006. The result have been quite dismal.

But don't take my word for it. Here's Eline vanden Brock of the Netherlands' Independent Institute explaining why the Obamacare approach failed in her country and why it is all but guaranteed to fail in this country, too:

YouTube: Repealing Obamacare and Restoring a Free Market in Healthcare

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)7/14/2010 1:46:27 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
In special deal, charity gives rationing advocate Berwick health coverage for life

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
07/14/10 7:57 AM EDT

Donald Berwick, recess-appointed by President Obama to head Medicare and Medicaid, is a well-known advocate of health care rationing and admirer of Britain's National Health Service. Rising health costs and limited resources "require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage," Berwick wrote in 1999. Last year, he said, "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." Of the NHS, Berwick says simply, "I love it," adding that it is "one of the great human health care endeavors on earth."

As it turns out, Berwick himself does not have to deal with the anxieties created by limited access to care and the extent of coverage. In a special benefit conferred on him by the board of directors of the Institute for Health Care Improvement, a nonprofit health care charitable organization he created and which he served as chief executive officer, Berwick and his wife will have health coverage "from retirement until death."


The provision is deep inside a 2009 audit report on the nonprofit's finances. On page 17 of that document, there is a paragraph headlined "Post Retirement Health Benefits":

<<< During fiscal year 2003, the Institute created a postretirement health benefit plan for its Chief Executive Officer (CEO). It provides the CEO and his spouse medical insurance from retirement until death. The present value of the estimated cost of this benefit is approximately $120,000, which is being accrued over the CEO's estimated remaining service period. The amount expensed by the Institute for the years ended 2009 and 2008 related to this liability was approximately $12,000 and $17,000, respectively. At 2009 and 2008, approximately $84,000 and $72,000, respectively, was included in accounts payable and accrued expenses. >>>


Berwick was the CEO in question; under the provision, he and his wife will be covered for the rest of their lives -- a benefit that was on top of the $2.3 million in compensation the nonprofit gave Berwick in 2008, the $637,006 in compensation he received in 2007, and the $585,008 he received in 2006.


The Institute describes its work as an effort "to accelerate improvement [in health care] by building the will for change, cultivating promising concepts for improving patient care, and helping health care systems put those ideas into action." It has about 110 employees and net assets of $49.5 million, according to its 2008 filing with the IRS. (2008 is the most recent year for which such filings are publicly available.) A 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, the Institute reported receiving $12.2 million in contributions and grants in '08, as well as $27.4 million in revenue from its various programs.

Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has been asking questions about the Institute's finances. Specifically, Grassley wanted to know more about the millions of dollars in grants and contributions to the organization: where did that money come from? Given the zillions of dollars that changed hands during the debate over Obamacare, it was a reasonable question.

But it was a question the White House did not want to answer. Not long after Grassley inquired about the Institute's donors, the White House decided to bypass Senate confirmation for Berwick. The president's recess appointment means that Berwick will not have to answer Grassley's, or anyone else's, questions.

Now comes word that Berwick enjoys his nonprofit's generosity in the form of health care coverage for life. That undoubtedly would also have been a topic of questioning had Berwick gone through the normal course of Senate confirmation. But the recess appointment avoided all that.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)7/19/2010 10:35:20 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
61% Expect Rise in Health Care Costs Under New Law, 56% Favor Repeal

Rasmussen Reports

Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters nationwide now expect the cost of health care to go up under the health care reform law, the highest level of pessimism measured since the law was passed in March.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows only 17% expect the cost of health care to go down under the new law, while another 17% expect costs to stay about the same.

At the end of June, 52% of voters expected health care costs to increase under the new law. Just after the bill was signed into law in March, 55% felt that way. The number of voters who expect costs to go down under the new plan has stayed within a narrow range of 17% to 21%.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters now favor repeal of the law, while 38% oppose repeal. Those numbers include 47% who Strongly Favor repeal and 25% who are Strongly Opposed.

The percentage that favors repeal is up slightly from last week but remains consistent with findings since the law’s passage. Support for repeal has ranged from 52% to 63%. ....

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)7/21/2010 1:30:22 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The great health-care cashout: Two more ‘reform’ authors go to K Street to represent Big Health Care

By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
07/21/10 10:30 AM EDT

Write a bill that profits drug companies and hospitals, while making the entire health-sector more dependent on government — then go to work as a lobbyist or “policy advisor” for those very companies.

That’s what Democratic staffers did and are doing with regard to health-care reform. I call it “The Great Health-Care Cashout,” and we’ve been tracking it here.

The latest public servants to parlay “reform” to riches are Connie Garner and Stacy Sachs, both of whom are joining Foley Hoag, a lobbying firm that represents the leading drug companies (which were the biggest winners from “reform.”)

Garner, a policy director at the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee, was a chief of author of the portion of “reform” known as the CLASS Act, which provides government insurance for long-term care. This measure kills the private long-term-care insurance market, but it subsidizes long-term care businesses, which, of course, supported the measure.

Foley Hoag says Garner will “will focus her practice on representation of national health trade organizations, health providers, national disability, patient advocacy organizations, and educational institutions.” It sounds like she may not register as a lobbyist, but will instead by a Tom Daschle-like non-lobbyist lobbyist.

Sachs had been at HELP since 1998. Foley Hoag writes, “In her role as Committee Counsel Ms. Sachs has been involved in all of the major Medicare and Medicaid policies over the past decade including the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. ”

Foley Hoag lobbyist Thomas barker explicitly says companies will be paying her to figure out how to deal with the bill she helped write: “She is widely respected on and off the Hill and in the Administration, and will play a critical role in advising providers and health care organizations on the implementation of the newly enacted health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act.”

Foley Hoag’s clients include Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Pfizer, and PhRMA.

Imagine if Garner and Sachs had written bills reforming health-care by getting government out of the industry. You can imagine their lobbying and consulting services would not be in such demand.

Again, check out our chart of other “reform” authors to see who has already cashed out and who hasn’t yet.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)7/22/2010 4:11:02 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Arizona Health Premiums May Jump 37% Because of Obamacare

BY John McCormack
The Weekly Standard
July 22, 2010 3:04 PM

The Arizona Republic reports the state of Arizona is telling its employees that Obamacare will increase the cost of health care premiums:

<<< State and university employees with families can expect to see their monthly health-insurance costs rise as much as 37 percent next year, depending on the type of plan they choose.

Figures provided by the Arizona Department of Administration show that health plans for families and single adults with children will shoulder the most-expensive monthly premium increases beginning Jan. 1, while individuals will pay modest increases.

The Department of Administration cited federal health reform as the reason the state's health plans will carry "greater expenses and higher premiums for members," according to a June 30 letter sent to about 135,000 state and university employees and their dependents.


The letter named two provisions that the state expects will drive health-insurance costs higher. One is a requirement that insurance plans provide coverage for dependent children up to age 26. The other is the federal legislation's ban on lifetime limits, an insurance-industry practice that cuts coverage once an individual's medical expenses exceed a set amount over their lifetime. >>>

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)7/26/2010 8:50:31 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
As the U.S. is increasing government control, U.K. is decentralizing health care

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
07/25/10 2:02 PM EDT

The new government in the U.K. seems to be recognizing socialized medicine is an expensive, bureaucratic albatross:


<<< Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level.
Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished. >>>

Given that the U.S. is also embracing fiscal stimulus while Europe is trying to get deficits and spending under control, it seems the Obama administration wants America to be more European, just as Europe wants to become more American.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)7/27/2010 12:33:05 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Why the Democratic alliance with trial lawyers will result in health care rationing

By: Joel S. Gehrke Jr.
Special to the Examiner
07/27/10 8:15 AM EDT

Donald Berwick, President Obama’s recess-appointed head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is famously “romantic” about the British National Health Service. While the Brits themselves have buyers’ remorse, UK government health care reflects Berwick’s belief that “the decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” If he’s right, Americans may have cause to blame the political debts of the Democratic Senate caucus which ignored medical liability reform during the 2009 Obamacare legislation and is now getting a big payoff from trial lawyers.

Remember the trial lawyer fundraiser hosted in Vancouver, British Columbia, for 12 Democratic Senate candidates?
The Center for Responsive Politics notes that Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., Rep. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and the other nine Senate candidates supported in Canada had received over $8 million from lawyers and law firms. In fairness to the other candidates, it should be noted that Reid alone received the lion’s share of that money – a whopping $2.8 million. (These numbers are current as of June 30th, 2010, and so do not include funds raised at the Vancouver fundraiser in July.) If he got the most money in absolute numbers, Reid and his colleagues are equally in debt to the trial lawyers, who rank as top two contributors for every candidate on the list (except for Chris Coons in Delaware – lawyers are his third largest donor base.) One of Reid’s largest donors is successful medical malpractice attorney and Baltimore Orioles owner Peter G Angelos, whose law offices gave the Majority Leader $64,000. Similarly, American Association for Justice, the group that hosted the Vancouver fundraiser, emphasizes medical malpractice lawsuits as part of their constituent services; just look at their Legal Research and Exchange.

What does this have to do with Don Berwick and rationing? The special preference shown by the American Association for Justice for Democrat Senators provides a sort of insurance against a possible Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. In over 2000 pages of legislation, Obamacare avoided tort reform, despite its proven record of improving access to medical care. For instance, tort reform was enacted in Texas in 2003. Since then, the number of physicians practicing in Texas has jumped by 10,000, according to the Texas Medical Board, to over 45,530 in-state medical doctors as of May 2010. Writing in 2007, Drew Thornley of the Texas Public Policy Foundation explained the effect of tort reform on patient care:


<<< In May 2003, there were 35,723 in-state medical doctors. Today, there are 6,000 more. The number of doctors is up 52 percent in San Antonio, 51 percent in El Paso, and 46 percent in Houston. The backlog of applications at the Texas Board of Medical Examiners exceeds 2,500. Doctors view Texas as an attractive place to practice. >>>

Moreover, at the time of the reforms, much of the state did not have certain specialists. For example, more than 150 counties lacked obstetricians. However, since the passage of Proposition 12, Texas added 195 OB/GYNs, 169 orthopedic surgeons, 554 anesthesiologists, 497 emergency medicine physicians, 110 neurologists, and 36 neurosurgeons.

To bring this back to Berwick and rationing, when medical malpractice lawsuits and high insurance premiums prevent 497 emergency medicine physicians from practicing in a given area (bear in mind that the figure will have increased since 2007), expect there to be long ER waits in hospitals and pressure to ration scarce labor resources, meaning some people get care and others don’t. That’s where Berwick comes in. And now, thanks to campaign finance reports and weekend run to Canada, we know where the loyalties of the Democratic Senators lie as well.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)8/4/2010 1:06:12 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Missouri Votes to Block Obama's Health Insurance Mandate

Associated Press
Published August 04, 2010

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, sending a clear message of discontent to Washington and Democrats less than 100 days before the midterm elections.

With about 90 percent of the vote counted late Tuesday, nearly three-quarters of voters backed a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.


The Missouri law would conflict with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014.

Tuesday's vote was seen as largely symbolic because federal law generally trumps state law. But it was also seen as a sign of growing voter disillusionment with federal policies and a show of strength by conservatives and the tea party movement.

"To us, it symbolized everything," said Annette Read, a tea party participant from suburban St. Louis who quit her online retail job to lead a yearlong campaign for the Missouri ballot measure. "The entire frustration in the country ... how our government has misspent, how they haven't listened to the people, this measure in general encompassed all of that."

Missouri's ballot also featured primaries for U.S. Senate, Congress and numerous state legislative seats. But at many polling places, voters said they were most passionate about the health insurance referendum.

"I believe that the general public has been duped about the benefits of the health care proposal," said Mike Sampson of Jefferson City, an independent emergency management contractor, who voted for the proposition. "My guess is federal law will in fact supersede state law, but we need to send a message to the folks in Washington, D.C., that people in the hinterlands are not happy."

Legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia have passed similar statutes, and voters in Arizona and Oklahoma will vote on such measures as state constitutional amendments in November. But Missouri was the first state to challenge aspects of the federal law in a referendum.

The intent of the federal requirement is to broaden the pool of healthy people covered by insurers, thus holding down premiums that otherwise would rise because of separate provisions prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people with poor health or pre-existing conditions.

But the insurance requirement has been one of the most contentious parts of the new federal law. Public officials in well over a dozen states, including Missouri, have filed lawsuits claiming Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by requiring citizens to buy health insurance.

Federal courts are expected to weigh in well before the insurance requirement takes effect about whether the federal health care overhaul is constitutional.

The Missouri Hospital Association spent $400,000 warning people that passage of the ballot measure could increase hospitals' costs for treating the uninsured, but there was little opposition to the measure from either grass-roots organizations or from the unions and consumer groups that backed the federal overhaul.

Some Missouri voters who opposed the ballot measure cited a potential cost-shift to those who have insurance if some people are allowed to continue visiting emergency rooms without insurance. Other opponents of Missouri's ballot measure said they wanted to give Obama's health care plan a chance to work.

"I don't think people should be walking around sick," said Kathy Ward, a 57-year-old Columbia nurse, who voted against Missouri's law. "The fact remains, people have the right to have health care, and they should get it. It help makes a healthier society."

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)8/4/2010 1:18:59 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Yes, Virginia!

Investor's Business Daily
Posted 06:48 PM ET

Law: A judge will let proceed a Virginia suit to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional while the state's attorney general says police can check immigration status a la the Arizona law. Somewhere Patrick Henry is smiling.


ObamaCare is unconstitutional, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli knows it. He also knows our unsecure borders and a stealth amnesty program pushed by this administration threaten citizens as far north as Richmond. That's why he's taken action in both areas, leading the states that formed a group in revolt against it.

Cuccinelli has issued a legal opinion that says Virginia police are allowed under the law to check the immigration status of those encountered in the course of normal police work. "It is my opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested," he wrote.


He believes states have a right to enforce federal immigration laws as much as they have a right and duty to enforce federal speed limits. The lives and safety of their citizens are at stake, and splitting constitutional hairs does not keep people from being raped, robbed and killed by other people who just should not be here.

Case in point: The Virginia man suspected in a drunken-driving crash that killed a nun in Prince William County last weekend is an illegal immigrant and repeat offender who was awaiting deportation and whom federal immigration authorities had released pending further proceedings.

Yet the Obama administration says state police have no right to check the immigration status of such individuals, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement has threatened not to process them if turned over to ICE for deportation.

Our citizens are not only unprotected at the border. They're also being compelled under ObamaCare to buy health insurance. The feds worry about states' usurping federal authority, but not about the feds' stepping over clearly defined constitutional limits to that authority.


Virginia, along with other states, has filed a lawsuit challenging the medical overhaul passed in March. The Old Dominion State contends the law's requirement that its residents have health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It does not share the views of those like California Democrat Pete Stark who believe the federal government can do anything it wants.

On Monday, Virginia federal Judge Henry Hudson ruled that Virginia's suit had merit and could proceed, dismissing a motion by Health and Human Services to have it thrown out. While not ruling on the merits, Hudson said: "Never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far. At this juncture, the court is not persuaded that the (HHS) secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a course of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element."

In layman's terms, the court ruled the feds are pushing the envelope and that Cuccinelli has a point worth further consideration. "This lawsuit is not about health care," Cuccinelli says. "It's about our freedom and about standing and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land — the Constitution."


If the federal government can unilaterally repeal the 10th Amendment and force us to buy health insurance, it can force us to do anything, making Congressman Stark a prophet, not a demagogue. Liberty and freedom will be at an end and all of us will be wards of the state.

Our borders and our freedoms are under attack. Virginia once again stands up against a tyrant to secure both.

Sic semper tyrannis.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)8/16/2010 3:34:52 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
What rationing? FDA may may pull approval for cancer drug over cost concerns

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
08/16/10 2:30 PM EDT

The Washington Post reports that the FDA is considering revoking approval for Avastin, a late-stage breast cancer drug, largely because they’re worried about over cost concerns:

<<< Federal regulators are considering taking the highly unusual step of rescinding approval of a drug that patients with advanced breast cancer turn to as a last-ditch hope.

The debate over Avastin, prescribed to about 17,500 women with breast cancer a year, has become entangled in the politically explosive struggle over medical spending and effectiveness that flared during the battle over health-care reform: How should the government balance protecting patients and controlling costs without restricting access to cutting-edge, and often costly, treatments?

The Food and Drug Administration is reviewing the recommendation of influential scientific advisers to revoke authorization of the drug to treat metastatic breast cancer. Contrary to initial research, new studies indicate that the benefits of the drug, which costs $8,000 a month, do not outweigh its risks, the advisory panel concluded. >>>

Now the FDA’s decision regarding Avastin is not directly related to Obamacare, but it does highlight an important aspect of the health care debate: Rationing is a very real concern when the government gets involved in paying for health care. Despite this, advocates of more government control in health care insisted that rationing was a totally unfounded concern when discussing health care reform. Perhaps the media will understandably avoid hyperbolic rhetoric such as “death panels,” but government can only be expected to make more life-or-death decisions based on cost as they’re given more control over health care. It’s Avastin today, what expensive drug or treatment will the FDA be concerned about tomorrow?

washingtonexaminer.com
.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)8/18/2010 5:45:33 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
What Happened to the 400,000 Jobs Pelosi Promised after Healthcare ‘Reform’ Passed?

By SusanAnne Hiller
Talkzilla

From my original post at Big Government

Back in February 2010, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised the American people that approximately 400,000 jobs would be created due to the passage of the healthcare bill.

Remember Pelosi promised this:

<<< Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the health summit: “It’s about jobs. In it’s life, it [the health bill] will create 4 million jobs — 400,000 jobs almost immediately.” >>>

Well, it’s almost November and the economy still hasn’t gotten any better and we have no evidence of those jobs being created. I can only assume that she didn’t mean this either:

YouTube: CNN: Pelosi to Wolf Blitzer: I promise no pork in the stimulus

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)8/19/2010 6:43:11 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Large Companies Faced With Uncertainty Over Effects of New Health Care Law

By Jim Angle
FoxNews.com
Published August 18, 2010

Large American companies, already facing rising health care costs along with their employees, also are struggling to figure out how the new federal health care law will affect them.

Helen Darling of the National Business Group on Health cited a survey of 72 large companies, which acknowledged "we are in middle of transformation, a transformation of how health care is financed and delivered in this country," she said.

The large companies said they expect their health care costs to rise next year by about 9 percent, two percent more than they rose this year. They attribute one percent of the two percent increase to the early provisions of the new health care law.

The companies have several strategies for dealing with increased costs and many say they'll do what they have been doing -- ask workers to pick up a larger share:


Fifty-seven percent of the employers say their employees are paying a higher portion of their premiums this year, and 63 percent say they'll ask workers to pay more next year.

And 36 percent of the companies increased the out-of-pocket maximums this year -- the amount a worker has to spend before the company picks up the tab.

Another popular change has to do with workers' regular prescriptions: 47 percent of these employers expect to make workers get their regular prescriptions by mail order. If prescriptions are obtained elsewhere, insurance would only reimburse the mail-order cost.

President Obama and Democrats who backed the health care law argue that measures contained in the law will move the country toward containing such runaway costs, which have been raising alarms for years.

But employers are starting to wrestle with the implications of the law as well. For instance, in 2013, retiree drug subsides will be subject to taxes, so employers are taking a second look at how they treat retirees.

Conservative economic analyst Doug Holtz-Eakin says employers are "eyeing elimination entirely of a lot of their retiree coverage."

In fact, 69 percent said such benefits are under review, awaiting clarification from the administration, which is just starting to write all the rules and regulations needed to give employers a better sense of how the law will affect them.

Katie Mahoney of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which supported the new law, says employers are waiting to see all the rules on how the law will be implemented. For now, she says, "there is a cloud of uncertainty as to what employers and plans and individuals need to do to comply with the law and the regulations."

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)8/21/2010 4:16:56 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Abject panic at the White House

By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
08/19/10 5:20 PM EDT

That’s my immediate reaction to this.

<<< Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit, and instead stressing a promise to “improve it.”

The messaging shift was circulated this afternoon on a conference call and PowerPoint presentation organized by FamiliesUSA — one of the central groups in the push for the initial legislation…The confidential presentation, available in full here and provided to POLITICO by a source on the call, suggests that Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. Instead, the presentation is designed to win over a skeptical public, and to defend the legislation — and in particular the individual mandate — from a push for repeal. >>>


Very different from the old days, isn’t it?

<<< “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done… that is a fight I want to have.” – Barack Obama on health care, Jan. 14. >>>


washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)9/21/2010 2:37:57 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Shocking to No One

Yuval Levin
The Corner

The Washington Post reports:

<<< Some of the country's most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23. >>>


As just about everyone who gave it a moment’s thought predicted before the law was enacted, this sort of thing is going to happen all over the individual insurance market as various parts of the law take effect. Insurers have to respond rationally to the economic pressures they are presented with, and this law creates pressures that make it far more reasonable to stop providing some kinds of insurance than to provide them under the terms Obamacare demands.

Here’s a flavor of the sort of “thinking” that was behind this law—again, from the Post story:


<<< “We're just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds,” Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, an advocacy group, said in a statement. “[It] is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest.” >>>

Patently dishonest? Does he think they are getting out of that piece of the insurance business for a reason other than the new law? Or does he (like HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius) just think that disagreeing with him is dishonest?

It’s a new era alright.


.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)9/22/2010 11:11:30 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Sebelius: [Health Insurance] Rate hikes will be ‘substantial,’ and it’s not our fault

By: Barbara Hollingsworth
Local Opinion Editor
09/21/10 5:15 PM EDT

Now we know why Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was trying to gag insurance companies from telling their customers that the coming rate hikes are due to Obamacare.

Sebelius told National Journal Editorial Director Ronald Brownstein that the coming rate hikes will be “substantial” – but added, “It has little to do with passage of the [Patient Protection and Affordable Care] Act and more to do with the marketplace.”

At a February 18 press conference, Sebelius predicted that insurance rates would go down once Obamacare passed: “…the Congressional Budget Office has suggested that if you look at just the individual market, which our report focuses on, and look at the impact of the House and Senate bills on the individual market, comparing similar benefit packages and what will happen with health reform, premiums will go down between 14 percent and 20 percent just by passing the bills.”

But premiums are not going down 20 percent, they’re going up, in some cases by more than 20 percent. Ooops!

Sebelius, who is in charge of running the whole Obamacare octopus, got it completely wrong. Instead of admitting error, she’s blaming the “marketplace.” And she’s partly right — as many opponents of Obamacare pointed out for months, any rational marketplace is going to mark up prices to cover the extra benefits the government is now forcing insurers to provide.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)9/22/2010 11:50:07 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
**** Note the Associated Pravda spin. Hell, even the lawmakers still don't know what's in it. ***

Poll: Americans Don't Understand Health Law

Published September 22, 2010
Associated Press



WASHINGTON -- Six months after President Obama signed landmark legislation that will extend health care coverage to millions of people, Americans still do not really know what the law does.

More than half mistakenly believe the overhaul will raise taxes for most people this year, an Associated Press poll finds. That would hold true only if most people were devoted to indoor tanning, which the law hit with a sales tax.

The uncertainty and confusion amount to a dismal verdict for the Obama administration's campaign to win over public opinion. Before the final votes in Congress, Obama personally assured wavering Democrats he would take the case to the American people after the law passed. It has not worked. And in the final stretch before congressional elections, scheduled for Nov. 2, Republicans are united by their demands for repeal.

The dire circumstances seemingly bode ill for Obama, who campaigned vigorously in 2008 on a promise to bring Americans universal health care. Having staked his presidency on health care, growing voter distrust of administration promises of cheaper and more effective care is a bad sign for Obama's Democrats in the coming elections. They could lose their majority in the House of Representatives and possibly even in the Senate.

Many who wanted the health care system to be overhauled do not realize that some provisions they cared about actually did make it in. And about a quarter of supporters do not understand that something hardly anyone wanted did not make it: They mistakenly think the law will set up panels of bureaucrats to make decisions about people's care, to which critics gave the evocative name "death panels."

The law does include a prohibition on health insurance companies denying coverage to people because of pre-existing medical conditions.

The AP poll was conducted by Stanford University with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The poll's questions included a true-or-false quiz on 19 items, some of which are in the law and others not. People also were asked how confident they were about their answers.

For the most part, majorities picked the right answers. But a sizable number also got things wrong. Right or wrong, people were unsure of their answers. Two-thirds or more were uncertain about their responses on eight of nine core provisions of the legislation.

Analysis of the findings indicated a split as far as the impact of accurate knowledge, between Democrats and independents on one side and Republicans on the other.

Accurate knowledge of the law made no difference in overwhelming opposition from Republicans.

However, for Democrats and independents, the more accurate knowledge people had of the bill, the more they liked it.

"Among Democrats and independents, the lack of knowledge is suppressing public approval of the bill," said Stanford political science professor Jon Krosnick, who directed the university's participation. "Although the president and others have done a great deal to educate people about what is in this bill, the process has not been particularly successful."

The White House is staging an event Wednesday to mark the six-month anniversary of Obama's signing of the bill. The president and top administration officials will be joined by people from around the country who are already benefiting from such popular provisions as allowing adult children to remain on their parents' insurance until they reach 26 years old.

Will it make a difference?

The poll shows Obama has yet to find the right wavelength for communicating even information that is relatively straightforward. One question stood out as an example:

People were asked whether the Congressional Budget Office had ruled that the legislation probably would increase the government's debt, or whether the nonpartisan budget analysts found that the health law would reduce red ink. (Correct answer: CBO found it would reduce the federal deficit over time.)

But 81 percent in the survey got the wrong answer, including majorities of both supporters and opponents -- even though Obama seldom misses a chance to remind audiences of CBO's favorable report.

Overall, three out of 10 in the poll said they favored the law, while four in 10 said they were opposed. Another 30 percent were neutral. The findings on support and opposition differ from another recent AP poll, but the two surveys cannot be compared because they were drawn up and carried out differently.

The other survey, an AP-GfK political poll, found 41 percent supporting the bill and 46 percent opposing it, with only 12 percent neutral.

The new survey was conducted Aug. 31 to Sept. 7, and involved interviews with 1,251 randomly chosen adults nationwide. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

The survey was conducted by Knowledge Networks, which first chose people for the study using randomly generated telephone numbers and home addresses. Once people were selected to participate, they were interviewed online. Participants without Internet access were provided it for free.

Stanford University's participation in the project was made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)9/30/2010 5:50:48 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Report: McDonald's May Drop Health Care Plan

McDonald's Tells Federal Regulators Its Worker Health Plan Violates New Rule

FoxNews.com
Published September 30, 2010

McDonald's Corp. has notified federal regulators it's health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn't compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, raising speculation about the fate of those employees' health coverage.

Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans. The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.

While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.

Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80 percent to 85 percent of its premium revenue on medical care, the Wall Street Journal reported.

But McDonald's issued a statement Wednesday denying that it planned to drop coverage for its employees and defending its benefit plans.

"We've had the opportunity to speak with regulatory agencies directly to better understand the implications of the law and to share our point of view," Steve Russell, a senior vice president with the company, said in the statement. "Moving forward, we will continue to have an open dialogue with legislators as well as regulators."

McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims. Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don't directly help patients.

Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)10/1/2010 5:19:18 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Democrats and the Health-Reform Albatross

By making so many misleading claims, the president created an army of opposition.

By KARL ROVE
WSJ_Opinion

'Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Karl Rove, they're all warning you of the horrendous impact if you support this legislation," President Barack Obama said in March about his health reform, but "I am actually confident . . . that it will end up being the smart thing to do politically . . ."

Unfortunately for the president, it turns out ObamaCare is not the wind filling the sails of Democratic candidates and propelling them to victory. Rather it has become a reef on which many of their electoral hopes will founder.

Pollster.com reports health-care reform is less popular today than it was when it was passed in March. And it wasn't particularly popular back then.

A composite average of the polls show that today 40% of Americans approve the health-care reform legislation while 50% oppose it. Forty-four percent supported it and 47% opposed it when the president signed the measure. And those in many of the polls who indicate they strongly disapprove of the law outnumber strong supporters by 2-to-1.

Americans stubbornly resist this landmark legislation in part because virtually every major claim about its benefits is turning out to be false—and people recoil when misled.

Mr. Obama said health-care reform would not only stop insurance premiums from rising rapidly, but also reduce them $2,500 a year per family. Yet PriceWaterhouseCoopers has found that with health-care reform, premiums are likely to rise 111% over the next decade, compared to a projected increase of 79% if nothing had been done. This just makes sense: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act slathers on mandates, requirements and rules that can only drive up insurance costs.

Mr. Obama also said repeatedly that if you like your current coverage, you can keep it. According to an analysis by John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, that won't be true for between 87 million and 117 million Americans. Either their employer will stop providing insurance, or they'll see benefits go down and co-pays rise as insurers and employers wrestle with the law's mandates.

Seniors are already losing their coverage: Harvard Pilgrim Health announced this week it will stop providing Medicare Advantage to 22,000 customers in New England because of Medicare cuts.

What about Mr. Obama's promise that reform would bend the cost curve, reducing what our nation spends on health care? The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has since found the U.S. will spend an estimated $311 billion more on health care over the next decade than if the bill hadn't passed.

Nor will Mr. Obama be able to keep his pledge never to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Taxes levied in the new law will fall on people of all income levels who are customers of drug and medical device companies or own an insurance policy.

There's more. The new program is "paid for" with 10 years of Medicare cuts and new taxes, fines and fees that start this year. But the government doesn't actually begin spending money in earnest for four years, and the program isn't fully ramped up for seven years. How sustainable is that?

More and more Americans are (rightly) concluding Mr. Obama's reform is a fiscal disaster of epic proportions. By making so many transparently false claims, Mr. Obama persuaded and energized a large swath of the electorate to oppose health-care reform.

Many opponents are among the 14 million Americans who work in health care and millions more who work for health insurance, drug or medical device companies. Many are not happy with what's coming their way. They are telling friends and family how the bill will negatively impact their jobs and communities. For example, health-insurance brokers are already realizing they are unlikely to have jobs or businesses in the future.

Many business owners are talking to their human resources staff and benefits counselors, making certain employees know what's responsible for the bad news that's coming. The conversations these people are having with neighbors and friends are far more powerful than any presidential speech.

Mr. Obama inadvertently recruited many who now are, as he said during the 2008 campaign, "fired up and ready to go"—this time to defeat his party over his signature domestic achievement. Democrats got the health-care legislation they wanted. Now they're going to get an electoral defeat they won't easily forget.

Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions, 2010).

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)10/13/2010 10:45:41 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Pennsylvania Congressmen Carney and Kanjorski hit over Hospital closings related to Obamacare

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
10/12/10 10:40 AM EDT

Last week, I noted that three Catholic hospitals in the Scranton area were closing and Obamacare was being cited as a major factor for the decision. Now CatholicVote.Org is hammering the two local Democratioc congressmen, Rep. Chris Carney and Rep. Paul Kanjorski over the closings:

YouTube: Pennsylvania Radio Ad

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)10/15/2010 4:51:00 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
It’s on: Judge rules that states can sue to stop Obamacare

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
10/14/10 4:40 PM EDT

As if Obamacare didn’t have enough problems, it’s now going to have 20 state attorney generals chipping away at it:

<<< U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had already indicated at a hearing last month that he could not uphold parts of a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.

“In this order, I have not attempted to determine whether the line between constitutional and extra-constitutional government has been crossed,” Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, wrote in his ruling.

Opponents of Obama’s overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system have said it violates the Constitution by imposing, for example, unlawful taxes and requiring citizens to obtain coverage, among other issues.

“I am only saying that … the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed,” Vinson said. >>>

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)10/20/2010 1:24:33 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Insurance costs rise for 90,000 workers at Boeing, company blames Obamacare

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
10/19/10 1:20 PM EDT

That darn cost curve just keeps bending in the wrong direction:

<<< Aerospace giant Boeing is joining the list of companies that say the new health care law could have a potential downside for their workers.

In a letter mailed to employees late last week, the company cited the overhaul as part of the reason it is asking some 90,000 nonunion workers to pay significantly more for their health plan next year. A copy of the letter was obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

“The newly enacted health care reform legislation, while intended to expand access to care for millions of uninsured Americans, is also adding cost pressure as requirements of the new law are phased in over the next several years,” wrote Rick Stephens, Boeing’s senior vice president for human resources. >>>

McDonalds, 3M and now Boeing… is there a single major employer saying that is saying this legislation is going to make things better and reducing insurance costs as a result?

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)10/22/2010 7:52:18 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
As economists urge Congress to de-fund Obamacare, lameduck battle looms

By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
10/21/10 2:05 PM EDT

Today, the group DefundIt.org is hand-delivering a letter to Capitol Hill that has been signed by 64 economists, asking members of Congress to de-fund Obamacare. The letter, whose text I have pasted below, highlights what will become the next political controversy if Republicans gain a majority in one or both houses of Congress. Will President Obama sign a bill that de-funds his own pet project? Or will we end up in a government shutdown situation?


The first big battle will come during the lameduck Congress. Republicans, who may hold as many as 43 Senate seats in the lameduck (the Illinois and West Virginia races are both special elections), will try to get a continuing resolution that keeps the government open until victorious Republicans take their seats in January. Democrats will try to rush through as many appropriations bills as they can, and they will likely try to fund Obamacare.

Next year, Republicans will need to think carefully about how they proceed with spending bills. They will try to attach “none of the funds contained in this bill” clauses related to the money Obamacare needs to establish its bureacracies, enforce its employer mandates, and levy fines against the uninsured and under-insured. But President Obama will obviously be wary of signing bills that contain such riders, as it would amount to an admission of defeat.

If Republicans want to avoid being blamed for a total government shutdown — and if it happens, this is inevitable, no matter how blameworthy Obama is himself — their best bet is probably to pass all of the spending bills separately (no omnibus), and only play chicken with Obama on the appropriations bills that affect Obamacare spending: primarily Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Labor. Even more effective, how about providing funds for the agencies within those departments that people would actually miss, but not others? House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, suggested such an approach during a recent speech at AEI:

<<< Let’s do away with the concept of “comprehensive” spending bills. Let’s break them up, to encourage scrutiny, and make spending cuts easier. Rather than pairing agencies and departments together, let them come to the House floor individually, to be judged on their own merit. Members shouldn’t have to vote for big spending increases at the Labor Department in order to fund Health and Human Services. Members shouldn’t have to vote for big increases at the Commerce Department just because they support NASA. Each Department and agency should justify itself each year to the full House and Senate, and be judged on its own. >>>

Rule-changes to appropriations could easily facilitate such an approach in the House — the Senate is another matter, but all spending bills must originate in the House anyway. And of course, the legislative picture becomes even more complicated if Republicans take the House but not the Senate, as seems likely.

Anyway, here’s the letter:


Dear President Obama and Members of Congress,

Rising health care costs have burdened the economic prosperity of American businesses and families for far too long. The recently passed reform law fails to address this concern and is even likely to raise costs due to its imposition of burdensome regulations and over $500 billion of higher taxes.

To restore America’s prosperity, Congress should de-fund the current law until it can be repealed and replaced with proven free-market solutions that have increased access to care by decreasing costs in states around the country.

We look forward to working with you to advance America’s prosperity by making our health care system more accessible and affordable.

Sincerely,


William Allen, University of California Los Angeles
Charles W. Baird, California State University, East Bay
Chip Baumgardner, Pennsylvania College of Technology
Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
Samuel Bostaph, University of Dallas
Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
William Butos, Trinity College
Phil Bryson, Brigham Young University
Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
Richard Cebulla, Armstrong Atlantic State University
Lloyd Cohen, George Mason University
Lee Coppock, University of Virginia
Jim Cox, George Perimeter College
Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University
Antony Davies, Duquesne University
Ronnie Davis, Printing Industries of America
Jeff Dorfman, University of Georgia
William Dougan, Clemson University
Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
Fred Esposto, Kutztown University
Susan Feigenbaum, University of Missouri, St. Louis
Charles Geiss, University of Missouri – Columbia
Micha Gisser, University of New Mexico
Ed Graham, University of North Carolina Wilmington
Gerald Gunderson, Trinity College
Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
Scott Harrington, University of Pennsylvania
Bradley Hobbs, Florida Gulf Coast University
John Hoehn, Michigan State University
Thomas Howard, University of Howard
Bruce Hutchinson, University of Tennessee Chattanooga
Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College
Daniel Klein, George Mason University
Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Bart Lee, Golden Gate University
Donald Luskin, Trend Macrolytics
Yuri N. Maltsev, Carthage College
Lawrence McQuillan, Pacific Research Institute
Roger Meiners University of Texas Arlington
Tracy Miller, Grove City College
Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University
John Murray, University of Toledo
Allen Parkman, University of New Mexico
Judd Patton, Bellevue University
William Peirce, Case Western Reserve University
Joseph Pomykala, Towson University
Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College
David Ranson, Wainwright & Co. Economics
Charles Rowley, George Mason University
Paul Rubin, Emory University
John Ruggiero, University of Dayton
John Seater, North Carolina State University
John Semmens, Laissez Faire Institute
Alan Shapiro, University of Southern California
Stephen Shmanske, California State University, East Bay
Robert Stein, First Trust Portfolios
Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University
Jason Taylor, Central Michigan University
David J. Theroux, The Independent Institute
Alex Tokarev, The King’s College
Nikolai Wenzel, Hillsdale College
Brian Wesbury, First Trust Portfolios
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
Bill Yang, Georgia Southern University

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)10/22/2010 8:49:18 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
ObamaCare - A Job only a huckster could manage



Chuck Asay from Creators Syndicate

creators.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)11/2/2010 4:33:23 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Layoffs at South Bend, Ind. hospital; Obamacare blamed

By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
11/01/10 11:10 PM EDT

This is not the story that Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., wants to see on the news the night before Election Day. It's about the hospital where I was born:

<<< With St. Joseph County’s unemployment rate still sitting above ten percent, things could be getting worse thanks to cuts at Memorial Hospital. Those cuts began back in June and hospital leaders say there’s no end in sight.

While hospital leaders admit the economy sparked this problem, it says the Obama Health Care Reform Act gave the hospital a one-two punch. While more people may soon get more health coverage, Obama’s plan cuts reimbursement dollars for hospitals at a time administrators say they could use them most.

If you roll up a chair and type your way to Memorial Hospital’s web site, you can click your way through 45 active job openings. Pay the hospital a visit and you’ll see it’s still getting patients and paying for construction improvements. So why would it cut nearly fifty jobs in just five months?

…In a statement the hospital said:”Health care reform in its current state has already started to cut reimbursement rates to hospitals across the region and the country and we expect that reality to get worse moving forward.”

It’s a catch 22; increased health insurance at the cost of hospital staffing. >>>

Oh, but don’t worry, things will get better….says…a high school student!

<<< “I think it should get better as time goes on. Once the system really gets going and the bill picks up speed, I think it should get better,” Washington High School junior Gabriellee Lee said after completing a shadow day at Memorial Hospital. >>>

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)11/4/2010 2:54:48 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Newly Empowered House Republicans Eye Repeal of 'Obamacare'

FoxNews.com
Published November 03, 2010

President Obama spent most of his first two years in office getting a sweeping health care bill passed into law.

Now Republicans, who captured the House in Tuesday's elections, may spend the next two years trying to roll it back.

Republicans picked up at least 60 seats Tuesday in what some analysts say was a manifestation of how the unpopular health care law has divided the nation.

During the campaign, Republicans ran against the legislation while most Democrats ran away from it, with some stumbling over themselves. In the end, 35 Democrats who voted for the health care bill lost re-election. But 23 of the 34 moderate and Blue Dog Democrats who voted against the legislation also lost.

Exit polls showed dissatisfaction with the new law, though the numbers were short of a majority calling for a full-on repeal.

A Fox News national exit poll found that voters were nearly split on whether the law should be scrapped. Forty-eight percent of voters said they wanted it repealed, and of those, 86 percent were Republicans and 11 percent Democrats. Another 31 percent of all voters polled said the law should be expanded, and 16 percent said the law should be left alone.

But Republicans are still vowing to repeal the legislation in the wake of their pummeling of House Democrats.

“I believe that the health care bill that was enacted by the current Congress will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world, and bankrupt our country,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, the presumptive new House speaker, said in a news conference. “That means we have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill and replace it with common sense reforms to bring down the cost of health care.”

Rep. Eric Cantor, the presumptive new House majority leader, told CBS News on Wednesday that he intends to immediately seek an up-or-down vote on repealing the law.

“So I believe that when we take majority of the House in January, I hope that we’re able to put a repeal bill on the floor right away because that’s what the American people want,” he told CBS News’ Katie Couric. “They understand that this bill is going to bankrupt this country and take away the health care that they – most people in this country – know and like.”

But repeal is not a realistic option because Democrats still control the Senate, although their majority has been diminished, and Obama can always wield his veto power over bills he doesn’t support.

Yet the message sent by the election could be strong enough bring the president and Republicans together to enact some changes next year, including pulling back some of the most onerous rules that critics say hurt small businesses while focusing on the primary “mandate” of the election – to create conditions for businesses to hire.

Obama said Wednesday in a somber news conference that he’d be open to reasonable changes in the legislation.

“Now if the Republicans have ideas for how to improve our health care system, if they want to suggest modifications that will deliver faster, more effective reform to a health care system that has been wildly expensive for too many families, businesses and certainly our federal government, I am happy to consider some of those ideas,” he said.

As an example, he cited a tax provision of the new law that requires small businesses to file a 1099 form every time they spend more than $600 per year for goods and services from a company – a requirement that Obama said “appears to be too burdensome for small businesses.”

“It just involves too much paperwork, too much filing – it’s probably counterproductive,” he said. “It was designed to make sure revenue was raised to help pay some of the other provisions, but it ends up just being so much trouble that small business finds it difficult to manage, that’s something that we should take a look at.”

But he contended that most voters would not want to repeal provisions such as eliminating a coverage gap in Medicare prescription drugs for seniors.

“As I said before though, I think we’d be misreading the election if we thought that the American people would want to see us for the next two years re-litigate the arguments we had over the last two years,” he said.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)1/19/2011 10:31:57 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Effect of the 'Shellacking' on the Fla. Obamacare Lawsuit

Hans von Spakovsky
The Corner
Wed Jan 19, 2011 17:44

Judge Roger Vinson, the federal judge in the lawsuit filed in Florida contesting the constitutionality of Obamacare, issued an order today allowing six more states to join the litigation: Ohio, Kansas, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Maine, and Iowa. According to his order, all of these states are “represented by Attorneys General and/or Governors who have just recently taken office following the November 2010 elections.” The change in political control of numerous states -- like the complete takeover of state government by Republicans in Wisconsin -- has made an obvious difference in the fight to overturn Obamacare.

There are now 26 states suing the Obama administration in Florida, along with two individual plaintiffs and the National Federation of Independent Business. This means that a majority of state governments are fighting the federal government. If not unprecedented, it's certainly a rarity. It's also powerful testimony that most Americans -- and their elected leaders in state government -- feel the administration's approach to health care is completely wrong-headed.

The fact that a majority of state governments are contesting the power of the federal government under the Constitution on this issue will certainly have an impact not just on Judge Vinson, but on the appellate court and ultimately the justices of the Supreme Court. The gravity of that fact cannot fail to influence the outcome of this case.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)1/27/2011 12:52:52 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
The ‘HealthStat’ Seduction

The community-policing model of health care is at odds with any notion of limited government.

Jonah Goldberg
National Review Online

If professional writing were the guild it often appears to be, Atul Gawande would be a scab. A surgeon and professor, Gawande also writes beautifully for The New Yorker about health care.

His latest article, “The Hot Spotters,” focuses on what Gawande claims is a revolutionary approach to health care. In Camden, N.J. — hardly a garden spot in the Garden State — just 1 percent of the people who used the city’s medical facilities accounted for 30 percent of the costs. One patient had 324 hospital admissions in five years. Another single-handedly cost insurers $3.5 million.

A third fellow, weighing 560 pounds, with both an alcohol and a cocaine problem, spent more time over a three-year period in the hospital than out of it. But thanks to work by a crusading doctor, Jeffrey Brenner, the man was pulled back from the brink, cutting his hospital visits dramatically.

Brenner’s theory is that we can save billions by delivering better health care to the sickest people.
Brenner was inspired by the CompStat approach used by police in New York City during the 1990s to tackle crime where it is most concentrated. Just as cops got out of their cars and walked a beat in the worst areas, under Brenner’s “HealthStat” approach doctors and nurses get out and get involved in the lives of the sickest patients.

Brenner’s results are impressive.
All it takes is a near-religious dedication to getting involved in the nitty-gritty of patients’ lives.

In a similar effort, a clinic formed by Atlantic City’s casino workers’ union and its biggest hospital treats only the patients with the highest medical costs. The clinic often hires health “coaches” from outside the health-care profession, because too many of the professionals have become bureaucratized, trained to say “no” to almost any question.

Gawande recounts how one such coach — a former Dunkin’ Donuts cashier named Jayshree who speaks Gujarati — helped a seriously ill Indian immigrant get well enough to use a walker instead of a wheelchair. Why did this patient listen to Jayshree after she wouldn’t take similar advice about diet and exercise following her first two heart attacks?

“Because she talks like my mother.”

A preliminary study found that the Atlantic City effort achieved real cost savings. But it was also lucky, statistically speaking. A single heart transplant for any one of its gravely ill patients would have wiped out all of the savings.

Still, Gawande’s enthusiasm is infectious, and so is the passion of professionals like Brenner. Where Gawande falls short is in explaining how all of this justifies “Obamacare” (apparently he hasn’t gotten the memo about not using that term).

Yes, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act funds pilot programs like Brenner’s, but it also fuels the sort of bureaucracy that even Gawande and Brenner concede strangles innovation. It makes insurance companies into even more sheltered monopolies — health utilities, in effect — and appeases many of the political constituencies that stand to lose money from this style of counterinsurgency medicine.

Also, we know that Obamacare incentivizes corporations to dump their most expensive patients onto public exchanges. Which means taxpayers will pick up a much bigger tab than we were told.


Given these disappointments with the latest cures for the system, perhaps a little skepticism about the ability of “hot-spotting” to make it all work out is in order, too.

But what I find most striking about Gawande’s celebration of the community-policing model is how at odds it is with any notion of limited government. He is tone-deaf to those who might bristle at the idea of medicalizing society.

In Camden, Brenner wants to put social workers in “hot spot” buildings so residents can be coached daily about their diet and exercise and harangued to quit smoking. He cajoled the 560-pound alcoholic drug addict to resume church attendance.

This all sounds fine, from a medical perspective. But citizens are not patients.

Brenner is a private citizen doing heroic work. But if this model were to be nationalized, you would in effect have agents of the government serving as lifestyle coaches and health “mothers.” Surely you don’t have to be a “tea partier” to find that creepy.


— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.


.



To: Sully- who wrote (34718)1/27/2011 1:02:25 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Medicare Actuary Doubts Health Care Law Will Hold Down Costs

Associated Press
Published January 26, 2011

WASHINGTON -- Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.


Foster's assessment came a day after Obama in his State of the Union message told lawmakers that he's open to improvements in the law, but unwilling to rehash the health care debate of the past two years. Republicans want to repeal the landmark legislation that provides coverage to more than 30 million people now uninsured, but lack the votes.

Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.

On the costs issue, "I would say false, more so than true," Foster responded.

As for people getting to keep their coverage, "not true in all cases."

Foster was a thorn in the side to the administration throughout the health care debate, doubting that Medicare cuts would prove to be politically sustainable and raising other questions. An equal opportunity skeptic, he was also a bane to the George W. Bush administration during the debate that led to creation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003. Obama White House officials dispute his analysis and predict that he will be proven wrong about the health care law. Republicans hang on his every word.

The comments Wednesday were unusually direct because Foster generally delivers his analysis in complicated technical memos.

Foster says analysis by his office shows that the health care law will raise the nation's health care tab modestly because newly insured people will be getting medical services they would have otherwise gone without.

Costs could also increase if Medicare cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies turn out to be politically unsustainable over the years. The actuary's office has projected those cuts would eventually force about 15 percent of providers into the red. The health care law funnels savings from the Medicare cuts to provide coverage to uninsured workers and their families.

As for people getting to keep their health insurance plan, Foster's office is projecting that more than 7 million Medicare recipients in private Medicare Advantage plans will eventually have to find other coverage, cutting enrollment in the plans by about half.

The health care law gradually cuts generous government payments to the plans, so insurers are expected to raise premiums or even drop out. And the main reason seniors have flocked to the private plans is that they offer lower out-of-pocket costs.

Medicare recipients who lose private coverage would still be guaranteed coverage in the traditional program, but they would likely have to take out a supplementary insurance plan for gaps in their coverage.

.