Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (25107)	12/12/2012 11:17:18 AM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Oh, the dripping irony of it. Now the weasels that passed ObamaNoCare are asking to delay implementation of one of the fund raising mechanisms of it to delay the job killing effects.

To: longnshort who wrote (25107)	12/13/2012 10:49:17 AM
From: skinowski	6 Recommendations Respond to of 42652

Looks like pro-ObamaCare Senators want to control the expensive Gov care, but do not want the economic costs to reflect negatively on their careers. By signing the letter, now they are on record as "fighting" for the common man both ways -- namely, FOR GovCare, but AGAINST the costs.... lol.

To: longnshort who wrote (25107)	3/23/2013 8:49:19 AM
From: greatplains_guy	3 Recommendations Respond to of 42652

Their Own Devices The Senate repeals one ObamaCare tax among many, 79 to 20. March 22, 2013, 7:01 p.m. ET. The Affordable Care Act has been a running series of nasty non-surprises, with many more on the way—gird yourself for 116% insurance premium increases—but sometimes the surprises are real. Take the amazing bipartisan turn against the 2.3% tax on medical device makers, even among liberals who still evince no remorse for voting for the overall bill three years ago. Not that the media noticed, but on Thursday night ObamaCare's $29 billion excise tax on device sales (not profits) lost on the Senate floor in a rout. The vote was 79 to 20, well over the two-thirds supermajority required to override President Obama's threatened veto. More amazing still, the 33 Democratic and one independent defectors didn't merely come from device-making states like Massachusetts (Elizabeth Warren and Mo Cowan) or Minnesota (Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, the main cosponsor of the amendment with Utah's Orrin Hatch). They included the Senate Budget Chairman, Patty Murray of Washington, and Illinois's Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 leader. New York's Chuck Schumer—Majority Leader in waiting—climbed aboard, as did otherwise conventional progressives like Maryland's Barbara Mikulski and Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal. Before the vote, some of these stalwarts denounced the Affordable Care Act in terms even we might consider excessive. Here's Mr. Franken: "The industry is being punished for its innovation and growth." Or as Ms. Klobuchar put it, "The tax is a burden on medical device businesses but, most importantly, it is a disincentive for jobs. It stifles innovation, and it makes it more difficult for the next generation of lifesaving devices to make it to the market." All of this isn't so much a change of heart as it is a full cardiac transplant. But the amendment was attached to the nonbinding Senate budget resolution. If these penitents really are serious about the damage they're about to cause in the life sciences, the next step is to send a real bill to the House. Last June that chamber voted 270 to 146 to repeal the tax, also close to the 290 veto override threshold. Then dare Mr. Obama to try to defend an anticompetitive, antigrowth tax. Back then the usual media suspects said it would never come to that because the House repeal was DOA in the Senate, but the conventional ObamaCare wisdom is usually false and so it has proven to be again. What the Senate vote shows is that the newest entitlement is far more vulnerable than the political class claims to believe, especially once people see its consequences in practice. There will be many more such reversals. online.wsj.com

To: longnshort who wrote (25107)	6/20/2013 8:16:42 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

John Kerry's ObamaCare Boondoggle A backroom deal he cut for Massachusetts hospitals has caused a bipartisan uproar in Congress. By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL June 20, 2013, 6:59 p.m. ET A bipartisan backlash is growing against another section of President Obama's health-care law. The president can blame this latest embarrassment on none other than Secretary of State John Kerry. Everyone remember the origins of the so-called Affordable Care Act? The Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, Gator-Aid, and other buyoffs for the votes of key Senate Democrats? Three years on, yet another sweetheart deal has declared itself, this one inserted by the then-senator for Massachusetts. In Congress, it's becoming known as the Bay State Boondoggle. At issue are the dollars that Medicare pays to hospitals for the wages of doctors and staff. Before the new health law, states were each allocated a pot of money to divvy among their hospitals. The states are required to follow rules in handing out the funds, in particular a requirement that state urban hospitals must be reimbursed for wages at least at the levels of state rural hospitals. Enter Mr. Kerry, who slipped an opaque provision into the Obama health law to require that Medicare wage reimbursements now come from a national pool of money, rather than state allocations. The Kerry kickback didn't get much notice, since it was cloaked in technicality and never specifically mentioned Massachusetts. But the senator knew exactly what he was doing. You see, "rural" hospitals in Massachusetts are a class all their own. The Bay State has only one, a tiny facility on the tony playground of the superrich—Nantucket. Nantucket College Hospital's relatively high wages set the floor for what all 81 of the state's urban hospitals must also be paid. And since these dramatically inflated Massachusetts wages are now getting sucked out of a national pool, there's little left for the rest of America. Clever Mr. Kerry. The change has allowed Massachusetts to raise its Medicare payout by $257 million, forcing cuts to hospitals in 40 other states. The National Rural Health Association and 20 state hospital associations in January sent a panicked letter to President Obama, noting that the Massachusetts manipulation of the program would hand that state $3.5 billion over the next 10 years at the expense of Medicare beneficiaries everywhere. They quoted Mr. Obama's former head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Donald Berwick, admitting that "What Massachusetts gets comes from everybody else." Mr. Kerry's Yankee ingenuity isn't going down well with . . . most of Congress. Even representatives from the handful of states (nine) that have benefited along with Massachusetts from the new formula realize that mergers in the hospital arena, and changing "rural" designations, mean they could be hit in the future. Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, an ardent supporter of Mr. Obama's health law, teamed up earlier this year with Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn to introduce legislation to kill the Bay State fleecing. Sixty-eight senators voted for the amendment as part of the (nonbinding) Senate budget resolution in March. That number included 23 Democrats, among them powerhouses of the liberal caucus: New York's Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin, and Minnesota's Al Franken. Ms. McCaskill (whose state will lose $15 million in hospital payments this year) is now demanding a binding vote, and on Monday she sent out another letter ginning up names to add to the 23 bipartisan co-sponsors she and Mr. Coburn have for stand-alone legislation. Texas Republican Kevin Brady recently introduced a similar repeal bill in the House, where it already has 36 co-sponsors. House Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam, a Republican co-sponsor, notes that his (and President Obama's) home state of Illinois has already lost $60 million. "It's a zero sum game that reinforces all of our worst fears about how the health-care law was drafted. Backroom negotiations, secret deals, and now this long con on Medicare reimbursement rates that is already doing real damage to Illinois hospitals," he tells me. The episode is also heaping embarrassment on the American Hospital Association, a cheerleader for the health law that is now robbing most of its members blind. Rather than endorse current boondoggle-repeal efforts—which would require it to publicly admit its mistake—the AHA is hiding behind calls for more "comprehensive reform" of the wage-payment system. That dodge isn't likely to satisfy its cash-strapped members for long. Indeed, the fury from state hospitals is growing daily, heaping enormous pressure on members to join this latest cleanup of the president's rushed law. If anything, this revolt is illuminating a notable trend. Whether it's the 2011 repeal of the health law's tax-reporting requirement, or the bipartisan push to repeal its medical-device tax, or this Bay State fix, the political template has looked the same. Vulnerable Democrats, under pressure from home-state constituencies, want to look willing to "fix" or "improve" parts of a wildly unpopular health law that they supported. This has provided Republicans with the opportunity to recruit them for bipartisan votes to repeal parts of the act. That template is worth remembering as the law flails ahead into a no man's land of soaring premiums, rickety health exchanges and expensive mandates and taxes. A lot of home-state constituencies are going to be screaming. And a lot of members are going to be looking for cover. Write to kim@wsj.com online.wsj.com