Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

From Newsweek.

Premiums rise to 23% of median family income under proposed health plans.

Let's start with the numbers. Unfortunately, the word "savings" is used misleadingly. It doesn't mean (as is usual) actual reductions; it signifies smaller future increases. There's a big difference.

In 2009, national health spending will total an estimated $2.5 trillion, or 17.7 percent of gross domestic product. By 2019, it's projected to rise to $4.67 trillion under present policies, or 22.1 percent of GDP. With CAP's "savings," it rises a little less sharply to $4.49 trillion, or 21.3 percent of GDP, according to Harvard economist David Cutler, the study's co-author who provided these figures. Similarly, family health insurance premiums rise from 19 percent of median family income in 2009 to 25 percent in 2019 under present policies and 23 percent with CAP's "savings."

The point is simple: Even with highly optimistic assumptions, health spending remains out of control. It absorbs more of government, business and family budgets. Higher health spending would put pressure on future budget deficits, already projected to total about $9 trillion over the next decade. If new taxes and Medicare "savings" are real, they could be used exclusively to pay down deficits, not finance new spending.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Jeffrey Flier, dean of the Harvard Medical School, gave the various health bills a "failing grade" and said they wouldn't "control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care." Quoted in Newsweek, Dr. Delos Cosgrove, head of the Cleveland Clinic, said much the same. Richard Foster, the chief actuary of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, doubts the cost-saving provisions touted by CAP would save much money. He's also skeptical that Congress, facing complaints from hospitals and a squeeze on services, would allow all the Medicare reimbursement cuts to take effect. True, Congress has permitted some reimbursement reductions to occur but has repeatedly blocked the Sustainable Growth Rate adjustment for doctors, which most resembles the new proposals.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...sts_99526.html

[SamIam]

*Sigh* Another quote from Tin Foil Hat Quarterly above.

WASHINGTON -- We are now witnessing a determined counterattack by the Obama administration and its political allies on the matter of health care costs. Many critics (including me) have argued that President Obama's "reform" agenda wouldn't control rapidly rising health spending and might speed it up. The logic is simple. People with insurance use more health services than those without. If government insures 30 million or more Americans, health spending will rise. Greater demand will press on limited supply; prices will increase. The best policy: Control spending first; then expand coverage.

How dare those Americans currently without healthcare go out and get their various needs taken care of. Why, by golly, they just might end up productive members of the work force again. Think of the millions that could save. Gee, soup kitchens might have to go out of business and the rest of us wouldn't have to cross to the other side of the street when they see a schizophrenic coming. The US is going to the dogs, I tell you.

Why do I keep hearing a little voice saying, I got mine. Srew you.

Must be the bronchitis that I made an extravagant doctor's visit to get treated.

[TheMercenary]

You will not find a quote by me anywhere that states that we do not need healthcare reform. The problems which I have pointed out is that the bills do not address the problems in healthcare today. What we do have is a health insurance crisis and the reforms being put before the people have been crafted to do nothing more than give more to health insurance companies under the guise of reform. They have sold us out to 20 more years of servitude.

Originally Posted by SamIam

*Sigh* Another quote from Tin Foil Hat Quarterly above.



How dare those Americans currently without healthcare go out and get their various needs taken care of. Why, by golly, they just might end up productive members of the work force again. Think of the millions that could save. Gee, soup kitchens might have to go out of business and the rest of us wouldn't have to cross to the other side of the street when they see a schizophrenic coming. The US is going to the dogs, I tell you.

Why do I keep hearing a little voice saying, I got mine. Srew you.

Must be the bronchitis that I made an extravagant doctor's visit to get treated.

I'm just continually befuddled and bemused by the tin foil hat brigade.

One day...its all about government take-over of health care.

The next day...its all about a pay-off to the insurance lobby.

Is it all about socialism or are the tin foil hats opposed to greater competition and a significant role for free market in which (gasp!) the insurance companies will make money while at the same time, consumers get more accessible and affordable health care, with first-time protections against industry abuses?

But wait...why is the insurance lobby spending so much to defeat this bill?

Help! I dont what to believe.

Or maybe I do..and I know bullshit when I see it.

Its the tin foil hats talking out of both sides of their mouths.

[TheMercenary]

I have stated numerous times that they should have gone all in and taken it over completely or not.

Nothing done to date will fix the problems with the healthcare in the US.

The Dems are in bed with the insurance companies on this bill and we are letting them get away with maintaining the status quo having our healthcare controlled by For Profit Insurance Companies, crafted by health insurance insiders like Liz Fowler ( http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=616731&postcount=1452 ).

There are no controls for premiums or deductables for those who already have insurance.

As I stated earlier:

This bill does very little to fix the problems in our system. The insurance industry will take some hits but in exchange for a huge increase in income provided by the taxpayers. In the end it will cost every single working person who has a job and pays for their insurance a significant increase in costs. Preimums are not controlled and deductables are not controlled. Very few costs are controlled. Costs will be shifted to the taxpayer and taxpaying public.

In the end an estimated 25 million people will still be without healthcare according to the CBO. That is not fixing the problem. It is a half ass solution and they are missing a chance to fix the problems. Just like the economy the Congress is throwing money at the problem and getting everyone to believe they are fixing it when in fact this is just a few bandaids.

I can't wait to see all the support the Dems receive when this is all said and done, and they will pass a bill at sometime in the future. By then the damage will be done.

Wait maybe Liberman will still kill it after all.

[Spexxvet]

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I agree, Redux is a partisan bore sucking on the teat of Pelosi.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I agree, Redux is a partisan bore sucking on the teat of Pelosi.

Now that is a very mature post.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

It is also a pretty accurate description, except for the boring part, of Redux. Whose analysis of things I do not trust: the sentences that aren't mere party talking points tend to allege that socialist policies are not socialist. Red flag -- if not red diaper.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail brings a report from the trenches. You can see the blame being laid upon the administrative end of things.

[TheMercenary]

Wow, never thought I would agree with Screaming Howard Dean in this statement.

expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...06.html?sub=AR

[TheMercenary]

Imagine that....

That Health-Care Tax Pledge
The health-care bills are loaded with taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year.

'If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime." So spoke Barack Obama at his first address to Congress in February. We're about to find out if the President cares about that promise as much he does passing a health-care bill.

Congressional Democrats have loaded up their health bills with provisions raising taxes on the middle-class by stacks and stacks of dimes. And Senate Democrats on Tuesday made clear they won't be bound by the President's vow; 54 voted to kill Idaho Republican Mike Crapo's amendment to strip the bill of taxes on families earning less than $250,000 and individuals earning less than $200,000.

Those tax hits include a mandate of up to $750 a year for Americans who fail to purchase health insurance; new levies on small businesses (many of which file individual tax returns) that don't offer health care to employees; new tax penalties on health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts; and higher taxes on medical spending, including restrictions on medical itemized deductions, as well as taxes on cosmetic surgery. A Senate Finance Committee minority staff report finds that by 2019 more than 42 million individuals and families—or 25% of all tax returns under $200,000—will on average see their taxes go up because of the Senate bill. And that's after government subsidies.

This profusion of tax hikes is central to the Democratic fiction that the Senate bill is budget neutral. And because many Senate Democrats are cool to the House proposal to fund legislation with a surtax on the "wealthy," many of these middle-tax hikes will likely remain in final legislation. Yet President Obama is embracing the bill.

Democrats are instead trying to claim that some taxes really aren't taxes. The President in September engaged in a debate with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, with the President arguing that the individual mandate isn't a tax since it is for the good of America. Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow says increasing the amount of medical expenses a person must accumulate before deducting them also isn't a tax because "most Americans" don't itemize. Except the millions of middle-class Americans who do. Democrats have argued their restrictions on health savings accounts simply close "tax loopholes" and therefore also aren't new taxes.

Americans who will be paying more to the IRS can be trusted to know the difference. In April, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the President's tax promise applied to health care. He replied: "The statement didn't come with caveats." On the evidence in December, it did.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...696425696.html

[TheMercenary]

Reid buys another vote from NE to clinch a deal.

Democratic leaders said a breakthrough came when Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, agreed after 13 hours of negotiations on Friday to back the bill, making him the pivotal 60th vote.

The amendment also includes a special extension solely for Nebraska: increased federal contributions to the cost of an expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/he.../20health.html

[TheMercenary]

Disclaimer: Completely Partisan Source. To bad it is factual.

Lead StoryCash for Cloture: Demcare bribe list, Pt. II

By Michelle Malkin • December 21, 2009 02:48 AM

A month ago, I compiled Part I of the Demcare bribe list as Harry Reid rushed before Thanksgiving to secure his first cloture vote on the government health care takeover. (Quick re-cap: $300 million Louisiana Purchase for Landrieu; $300 million California doctor payments; AARP goodies; abortion and union lobby concessions.)

Here’s Part II of the Cash for Cloture bribe list all in one handy place (hat tip again to my friend ChristinaKB for the apt phrase she first coined on November 21 for the Demcare wheeling and dealing).

GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell alluded to all this backroom dealing on the floor early this morning before the cloture vote, but lamely refused to name names on the Senate floor.

Screw Senate collegiality. Let the sun shine in.



1. Sen. Ben Nelson’s “Cornhusker Kickback.” The CBO says the Nebraska Democrat sellout’s special Medicaid expansion subsidy will initially cost an estimated $100 million. The Hill reports that while Nelson credited Nebraska’s governor for giving him the idea to lobby for the government preference, Nebraska’s governor assailed the payoff:

“Nebraskans did not ask for a special deal, only a fair deal,” Heineman said in a statement Sunday. In response, Nelson fired off a letter Sunday to Heineman saying he’s prepared to ask that the provision covering Nebraska’s Medicaid share “be removed from the amendment in conference, if it is your desire.”



2. New England’s Special Syrup. Vermont and Massachusetts will get similar (though less generous) special treatment by the feds in covering Medicaid expansion costs. Combined with Nebraska’s tab, the exclusive clique’s payoffs will cost taxpayers $1.2 billion over 10 years. At least.



3. Corruptocrat Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd’s Christmas wish. He’s plunging in the polls and in need of a little bacon to bring home.

A $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election campaign, his office said Sunday night. The legislation leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where the money should be spent, although spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said Dodd hopes to claim it for the University of Connecticut. The provision is included in a 383-page series of changes to the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outlined Saturday. …The one sought by Dodd provides $100 million for “a health care facility that provides research, inpatient tertiary care, or outpatient clinical services.” It must be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States “that contains a State’s sole public academic medical and dental school.” The money can cover a maximum of 40 percent of the facility’s construction costs.

4. “Some insurers are more equal than others” tax exemption. The WSJ reports that nonprofit insurance companies will be exempt from a new, nearly $7 billion tax to pay for Demcare. Democrat Sens. Ben “Blank Check” Nelson and Carl Levin of Michigan pushed hard for the tax exemption, which will exempt insurers in their states.

5. The Frontier freebie. Several lucky states will see an increase in Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors, the NYT reports, — “where at least 50 percent of the counties are ‘frontier counties,’ defined as those having a population density less than six people per square mile. And which are the lucky states? The bill gives no clue. But the Congressional Budget Office has determined that Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming meet the criteria.”

6. More Democrat hospital bennies. Also via NYT: “Another provision of the bill would increase Medicare payments to certain “low-volume hospitals” treating limited numbers of Medicare patients. Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Senate health committee, said this ‘important fix’ would help midsize Iowa hospitals in Grinnell, Keokuk and Spirit Lake. Another item in Mr. Reid’s package specifies the data that Medicare officials should use in adjusting payments to hospitals to reflect local wage levels. The officials can use certain new data only if it produces a higher index and therefore higher Medicare payments for these hospitals. Senate Democrats said this provision would benefit hospitals in Connecticut and Michigan.”



7. Bernie Sanders’ socialized medicine sop. He wanted a public option. Instead, he got socialized medicine satellite clinics funded to the tune of at least $10 billion. In his remarks early this morning before the cloture vote, he gloated about the funding as a crucial step toward universal care. Via the Burlington Free Press:

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., scored a big victory, too, with the inclusion in the amendment package of $10 billion to expand community health centers across the country — including at least two more in Vermont.

“We are talking about a revolution in primary care here,” Sanders said. Funding community health centers in an additional 10,000 communities would extend primary care to 25 million more Americans. The $10 billion, added at Sanders’ request, would also ensure there would be medical professionals to provide primary care by expanding the National Health Service Corps by an additional 20,000 slots. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical professionals who agree to work in areas where there are limited medical services get help paying off their school loans. The House version of the health care reform bill contains $14 billion for these initiatives. Sanders said he was hopeful the final amount, which will be hammered out in negotiations between the House and Senate, would be closer to $14 billion.

Vermont has 8 community health centers and 40 satellite offices. “New funding would make it likely centers could be opened in Addison and Bennington counties,” Sanders’ home state paper reports.

8. Fla.-Pa.-NY Protectionism. Via Politico: “Three states – Pennsylvania, New York and Florida – all won protections for their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries at a time when the program is facing cuts nationwide.”

And you know there are many more untold payoffs — paid by stealing your money — yet to be stuffed into this bureaucratic monstrosity.



To quote our Chicago Way President: “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.”

http://michellemalkin.com/?frontpage=1&print=1

[SamIam]

4. “Some insurers are more equal than others” tax exemption. The WSJ reports that nonprofit insurance companies will be exempt from a new, nearly $7 billion tax to pay for Demcare. Democrat Sens. Ben “Blank Check” Nelson and Carl Levin of Michigan pushed hard for the tax exemption, which will exempt insurers in their states.

What the heck are "nonprofit insurance companies"? Charities? If they don't make a profit, how would you tax them, anyhow?

[classicman]

What exactly was the last "60th vote bought with? Anyone?

How many of these deals were made and how much did they cost the rest of us?

If it isn't the same everywhere is it really "universal"?