The Concord Coalition is among the best Washington Legislative trackers...
and in their news letter today there was an interesting link:
Modifications of Sept. 22 to Baucus Bill
On Page 18 Snowe's amendment concerning psychiatric treatment and beds has me
contacting Senate staff to see if we can get in on the "eight state demonstration project".
No...I'm still not a bill supporter...but if it flys...I want to help our people...
and we will all have to accept it...like it or not. As with most "legislative
sausage" there will be good parts...and not so good parts.
Full Version: "The Plan" starts to gell
I was curious what that Humana healthcare bill letter said since it kicked
up such a hornets nest on capital hill and in Medicare/Medicaid circles...
so...I found one...at The Talking Points Memo:
Seems pretty tame to me...but...
Politics Daily (blog) - 19 hours ago
This week the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it was investigating
Humana for providing “misleading” information.
The message: Don't mess with Obama-care.
up such a hornets nest on capital hill and in Medicare/Medicaid circles...
so...I found one...at The Talking Points Memo:
Seems pretty tame to me...but...
Politics Daily (blog) - 19 hours ago
This week the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it was investigating
Humana for providing “misleading” information.
The message: Don't mess with Obama-care.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Sep 23 2009, 03:00 PM) 
The Concord Coalition is among the best Washington Legislative trackers...
and in their news letter today there was an interesting link:
Modifications of Sept. 22 to Baucus Bill
On Page 18 Snowe's amendment concerning psychiatric treatment and beds has me
contacting Senate staff to see if we can get in on the "eight state demonstration project".
No...I'm still not a bill supporter...but if it flys...I want to help our people...
and we will all have to accept it...like it or not. As with most "legislative
sausage" there will be good parts...and not so good parts.
and in their news letter today there was an interesting link:
Modifications of Sept. 22 to Baucus Bill
On Page 18 Snowe's amendment concerning psychiatric treatment and beds has me
contacting Senate staff to see if we can get in on the "eight state demonstration project".
No...I'm still not a bill supporter...but if it flys...I want to help our people...
and we will all have to accept it...like it or not. As with most "legislative
sausage" there will be good parts...and not so good parts.
The Federal Government Grants Management Program is in greater need of reform that the health care
system...It is a cancer that is killing Education and National Defense...
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Sep 24 2009, 06:36 AM)
I was curious what that Humana healthcare bill letter said since it kicked
up such a hornets nest on capital hill and in Medicare/Medicaid circles...
so...I found one...at The Talking Points Memo:
Seems pretty tame to me...but...
Politics Daily (blog) - 19 hours ago
This week the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it was investigating
Humana for providing “misleading” information.
The message: Don't mess with Obama-care.
up such a hornets nest on capital hill and in Medicare/Medicaid circles...
so...I found one...at The Talking Points Memo:
Seems pretty tame to me...but...
Politics Daily (blog) - 19 hours ago
This week the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it was investigating
Humana for providing “misleading” information.
The message: Don't mess with Obama-care.
The letter is a fundamental lie meant to scare seniors. Medicare Advantage is NOT MEDICARE. It is a taxpayer funded PRIVATE PLAN created by Republicans along with the drug "doughnut hole" (where the government CANNOT negotiate for cheaper drug prices like the VA for example). It is funded by 177 Billion dollars of OUR money (courtesy of the republicans) to "help" PRIVATE companies like Humana keep paying their CEOs millions (Medicare Advantage costs 12% MORE than Medicare).
Under the "agreement" (under federal LAW) to help trick seniors into giving up Medicare (where you cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or dropped because you get sick) companies like Humana (who can jack up the rates and do all of the above) were not supposed to use their taxpayer funded profits to LIE to their clients by calling "Medicare Advantage" MEDICARE.
Strange...it seems the three cardiology associations of La. might disagree...
they took out a one-quarter page ad in the Baton Rouge Advocate saying
a July 1, 2009 decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
will drastically cut cardiology services to program participants...and asked
patients to call Congress to ask for a withdrawal of the decision.
Then you have this from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...isrc=newsletter
The Health-Care Ego Trip
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, September 28, 2009
What's driving the great health debate of 2009 is not a popular clamor for universal insurance.
"Many Americans are balking again at the prospect of health care reform," writes pollster
Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. A new Wall Street Journal poll found 41 percent
of respondents opposed to President Obama's proposals and 39 percent in favor (the rest were undecided).
The underlying driver is politicians' psychological quest for glory.
"My colleagues, this is our opportunity to make history," Chairman Max Baucus implored last week
as the Senate Finance Committee opened consideration of his bill. Politicians, in their most self-important
moments, see themselves as instruments of national destiny. They yearn to be remembered as the architects
and agents of great social and economic transformations. They want to be at the signing ceremony; they want a pen.
Ordinary Americans are rightly suspicious of this exercise in collective ego gratification,
which has gripped Obama and many of his congressional allies. Even when the goals are worthy --
as they are here -- the temptation to exaggerate, simplify and sugarcoat often proves irresistible.
Baucus's promotion of his handiwork is a case in point.
One study "found that every year in America, lack of health coverage leads to 45,000 deaths,"
he told the committee. "No one should die because they cannot afford health care. This bill would fix that."
There was more. "These reforms would give Americans real savings," Baucus said. The Congressional
Budget Office "tells us that the [insurance] rating reforms and exchanges in our proposal would significantly
lower premiums in the individual market." As well, the bill wouldn't increase the budget deficit and
"starts reducing the deficit within 10 years."
If only all this were irrefutable. But Baucus's claims are shaky. It is questionable whether more insurance
would save 45,000 lives a year. Unfortunately, just having insurance doesn't automatically improve people's health.
Sometimes more medical care doesn't really help. Sometimes people don't go to doctors when they should or
follow instructions (take medicine, alter lifestyles). Indeed, many people don't even sign up for insurance to which
they're entitled. An Urban Institute study estimated that 10.9 million people eligible for Medicaid or the
Children's Health Insurance Program in 2007 didn't enroll.
The 45,000 figure cited by Baucus is itself an unreliable statistical construct built on many assumptions.
It's based on a study of 9,004 people ages 17 to 64 who were examined between 1988 and 1994.
By 2000, 351 had died; of these, 60 were uninsured. The crude death rates among the insured
(3 percent of whom died) and uninsured (3.3 percent) were within the statistical margin of error.
After adjustments for age, income and other factors, the authors concluded that being uninsured
raises the risk of death by 40 percent. They then extrapolated this to the entire population by two techniques,
one producing an estimate of 35,327 premature deaths and another of 44,789.
This whole elaborate statistical edifice rests on a flimsy factual foundation. The point is not to deny
that the uninsured are more vulnerable (they are) or that extra insurance wouldn't help (it would).
The point is that estimating how much is extremely difficult. Advocates exaggerate the benefits.
Remember: Today's uninsured do receive care.
What about lower insurance premiums? Here's the actual CBO analysis:
"Premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law
individual market -- again with other factors held equal -- because the new policies would have to cover pre-existing medical
conditions and could not deny coverage to people with high expected costs for health care." The CBO added that it
couldn't predict premiums because so many factors might influence them.
It's true, as Baucus says, that the CBO estimated that new taxes and Medicare savings would cover the costs
of his original bill. But many Medicare "savings" are probably phony. Congress is likely to reverse them,
as in the past. Put in that category about $200 billion in "savings" over 10 years from lower reimbursement rates
for doctors (under the "sustainable growth rate" formula). Congress has repeatedly prevented those cuts from occurring.
A separate $180 billion in "savings" from lower reimbursement for hospitals and other providers are similarly suspect.
Together, these items provide about half the plan's financing.
Americans worried about this legislation may not know its details or may even be misinformed.
Still, their skepticism is justified. Grandiose rhetoric obscures unflattering reality. The proposals
don't force the major structural changes in the delivery system that might curb uncontrolled health spending,
which is the central problem. The bills that Congress is considering might marginally improve Americans' health
but would worsen the federal budget outlook and squeeze other public and private spending.
Whatever bragging rights result will quickly erode in the face of the health system's continuing problems.
--------------------
This sort of straight shooting is what has the WaPo much more
respected than the NY Times among independent and/or conservative voters.
they took out a one-quarter page ad in the Baton Rouge Advocate saying
a July 1, 2009 decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
will drastically cut cardiology services to program participants...and asked
patients to call Congress to ask for a withdrawal of the decision.
Then you have this from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...isrc=newsletter
The Health-Care Ego Trip
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, September 28, 2009
What's driving the great health debate of 2009 is not a popular clamor for universal insurance.
"Many Americans are balking again at the prospect of health care reform," writes pollster
Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. A new Wall Street Journal poll found 41 percent
of respondents opposed to President Obama's proposals and 39 percent in favor (the rest were undecided).
The underlying driver is politicians' psychological quest for glory.
"My colleagues, this is our opportunity to make history," Chairman Max Baucus implored last week
as the Senate Finance Committee opened consideration of his bill. Politicians, in their most self-important
moments, see themselves as instruments of national destiny. They yearn to be remembered as the architects
and agents of great social and economic transformations. They want to be at the signing ceremony; they want a pen.
Ordinary Americans are rightly suspicious of this exercise in collective ego gratification,
which has gripped Obama and many of his congressional allies. Even when the goals are worthy --
as they are here -- the temptation to exaggerate, simplify and sugarcoat often proves irresistible.
Baucus's promotion of his handiwork is a case in point.
One study "found that every year in America, lack of health coverage leads to 45,000 deaths,"
he told the committee. "No one should die because they cannot afford health care. This bill would fix that."
There was more. "These reforms would give Americans real savings," Baucus said. The Congressional
Budget Office "tells us that the [insurance] rating reforms and exchanges in our proposal would significantly
lower premiums in the individual market." As well, the bill wouldn't increase the budget deficit and
"starts reducing the deficit within 10 years."
If only all this were irrefutable. But Baucus's claims are shaky. It is questionable whether more insurance
would save 45,000 lives a year. Unfortunately, just having insurance doesn't automatically improve people's health.
Sometimes more medical care doesn't really help. Sometimes people don't go to doctors when they should or
follow instructions (take medicine, alter lifestyles). Indeed, many people don't even sign up for insurance to which
they're entitled. An Urban Institute study estimated that 10.9 million people eligible for Medicaid or the
Children's Health Insurance Program in 2007 didn't enroll.
The 45,000 figure cited by Baucus is itself an unreliable statistical construct built on many assumptions.
It's based on a study of 9,004 people ages 17 to 64 who were examined between 1988 and 1994.
By 2000, 351 had died; of these, 60 were uninsured. The crude death rates among the insured
(3 percent of whom died) and uninsured (3.3 percent) were within the statistical margin of error.
After adjustments for age, income and other factors, the authors concluded that being uninsured
raises the risk of death by 40 percent. They then extrapolated this to the entire population by two techniques,
one producing an estimate of 35,327 premature deaths and another of 44,789.
This whole elaborate statistical edifice rests on a flimsy factual foundation. The point is not to deny
that the uninsured are more vulnerable (they are) or that extra insurance wouldn't help (it would).
The point is that estimating how much is extremely difficult. Advocates exaggerate the benefits.
Remember: Today's uninsured do receive care.
What about lower insurance premiums? Here's the actual CBO analysis:
"Premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law
individual market -- again with other factors held equal -- because the new policies would have to cover pre-existing medical
conditions and could not deny coverage to people with high expected costs for health care." The CBO added that it
couldn't predict premiums because so many factors might influence them.
It's true, as Baucus says, that the CBO estimated that new taxes and Medicare savings would cover the costs
of his original bill. But many Medicare "savings" are probably phony. Congress is likely to reverse them,
as in the past. Put in that category about $200 billion in "savings" over 10 years from lower reimbursement rates
for doctors (under the "sustainable growth rate" formula). Congress has repeatedly prevented those cuts from occurring.
A separate $180 billion in "savings" from lower reimbursement for hospitals and other providers are similarly suspect.
Together, these items provide about half the plan's financing.
Americans worried about this legislation may not know its details or may even be misinformed.
Still, their skepticism is justified. Grandiose rhetoric obscures unflattering reality. The proposals
don't force the major structural changes in the delivery system that might curb uncontrolled health spending,
which is the central problem. The bills that Congress is considering might marginally improve Americans' health
but would worsen the federal budget outlook and squeeze other public and private spending.
Whatever bragging rights result will quickly erode in the face of the health system's continuing problems.
--------------------
This sort of straight shooting is what has the WaPo much more
respected than the NY Times among independent and/or conservative voters.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Sep 28 2009, 07:25 AM)
Strange...it seems the three cardiology associations of La. might disagree...
they took out a one-quarter page ad in the Baton Rouge Advocate saying
a July 1, 2009 decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
will drastically cut cardiology services to program participants...and asked
patients to call Congress to ask for a withdrawal of the decision.
Then you have this from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...isrc=newsletter
The Health-Care Ego Trip
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, September 28, 2009
What's driving the great health debate of 2009 is not a popular clamor for universal insurance.
"Many Americans are balking again at the prospect of health care reform," writes pollster
Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. A new Wall Street Journal poll found 41 percent
of respondents opposed to President Obama's proposals and 39 percent in favor (the rest were undecided).
The underlying driver is politicians' psychological quest for glory.
"My colleagues, this is our opportunity to make history," Chairman Max Baucus implored last week
as the Senate Finance Committee opened consideration of his bill. Politicians, in their most self-important
moments, see themselves as instruments of national destiny. They yearn to be remembered as the architects
and agents of great social and economic transformations. They want to be at the signing ceremony; they want a pen.
Ordinary Americans are rightly suspicious of this exercise in collective ego gratification,
which has gripped Obama and many of his congressional allies. Even when the goals are worthy --
as they are here -- the temptation to exaggerate, simplify and sugarcoat often proves irresistible.
Baucus's promotion of his handiwork is a case in point.
One study "found that every year in America, lack of health coverage leads to 45,000 deaths,"
he told the committee. "No one should die because they cannot afford health care. This bill would fix that."
There was more. "These reforms would give Americans real savings," Baucus said. The Congressional
Budget Office "tells us that the [insurance] rating reforms and exchanges in our proposal would significantly
lower premiums in the individual market." As well, the bill wouldn't increase the budget deficit and
"starts reducing the deficit within 10 years."
If only all this were irrefutable. But Baucus's claims are shaky. It is questionable whether more insurance
would save 45,000 lives a year. Unfortunately, just having insurance doesn't automatically improve people's health.
Sometimes more medical care doesn't really help. Sometimes people don't go to doctors when they should or
follow instructions (take medicine, alter lifestyles). Indeed, many people don't even sign up for insurance to which
they're entitled. An Urban Institute study estimated that 10.9 million people eligible for Medicaid or the
Children's Health Insurance Program in 2007 didn't enroll.
The 45,000 figure cited by Baucus is itself an unreliable statistical construct built on many assumptions.
It's based on a study of 9,004 people ages 17 to 64 who were examined between 1988 and 1994.
By 2000, 351 had died; of these, 60 were uninsured. The crude death rates among the insured
(3 percent of whom died) and uninsured (3.3 percent) were within the statistical margin of error.
After adjustments for age, income and other factors, the authors concluded that being uninsured
raises the risk of death by 40 percent. They then extrapolated this to the entire population by two techniques,
one producing an estimate of 35,327 premature deaths and another of 44,789.
This whole elaborate statistical edifice rests on a flimsy factual foundation. The point is not to deny
that the uninsured are more vulnerable (they are) or that extra insurance wouldn't help (it would).
The point is that estimating how much is extremely difficult. Advocates exaggerate the benefits.
Remember: Today's uninsured do receive care.
What about lower insurance premiums? Here's the actual CBO analysis:
"Premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law
individual market -- again with other factors held equal -- because the new policies would have to cover pre-existing medical
conditions and could not deny coverage to people with high expected costs for health care." The CBO added that it
couldn't predict premiums because so many factors might influence them.
It's true, as Baucus says, that the CBO estimated that new taxes and Medicare savings would cover the costs
of his original bill. But many Medicare "savings" are probably phony. Congress is likely to reverse them,
as in the past. Put in that category about $200 billion in "savings" over 10 years from lower reimbursement rates
for doctors (under the "sustainable growth rate" formula). Congress has repeatedly prevented those cuts from occurring.
A separate $180 billion in "savings" from lower reimbursement for hospitals and other providers are similarly suspect.
Together, these items provide about half the plan's financing.
Americans worried about this legislation may not know its details or may even be misinformed.
Still, their skepticism is justified. Grandiose rhetoric obscures unflattering reality. The proposals
don't force the major structural changes in the delivery system that might curb uncontrolled health spending,
which is the central problem. The bills that Congress is considering might marginally improve Americans' health
but would worsen the federal budget outlook and squeeze other public and private spending.
Whatever bragging rights result will quickly erode in the face of the health system's continuing problems.
--------------------
This sort of straight shooting is what has the WaPo much more
respected than the NY Times among independent and/or conservative voters.
they took out a one-quarter page ad in the Baton Rouge Advocate saying
a July 1, 2009 decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
will drastically cut cardiology services to program participants...and asked
patients to call Congress to ask for a withdrawal of the decision.
Then you have this from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...isrc=newsletter
The Health-Care Ego Trip
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, September 28, 2009
What's driving the great health debate of 2009 is not a popular clamor for universal insurance.
"Many Americans are balking again at the prospect of health care reform," writes pollster
Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. A new Wall Street Journal poll found 41 percent
of respondents opposed to President Obama's proposals and 39 percent in favor (the rest were undecided).
The underlying driver is politicians' psychological quest for glory.
"My colleagues, this is our opportunity to make history," Chairman Max Baucus implored last week
as the Senate Finance Committee opened consideration of his bill. Politicians, in their most self-important
moments, see themselves as instruments of national destiny. They yearn to be remembered as the architects
and agents of great social and economic transformations. They want to be at the signing ceremony; they want a pen.
Ordinary Americans are rightly suspicious of this exercise in collective ego gratification,
which has gripped Obama and many of his congressional allies. Even when the goals are worthy --
as they are here -- the temptation to exaggerate, simplify and sugarcoat often proves irresistible.
Baucus's promotion of his handiwork is a case in point.
One study "found that every year in America, lack of health coverage leads to 45,000 deaths,"
he told the committee. "No one should die because they cannot afford health care. This bill would fix that."
There was more. "These reforms would give Americans real savings," Baucus said. The Congressional
Budget Office "tells us that the [insurance] rating reforms and exchanges in our proposal would significantly
lower premiums in the individual market." As well, the bill wouldn't increase the budget deficit and
"starts reducing the deficit within 10 years."
If only all this were irrefutable. But Baucus's claims are shaky. It is questionable whether more insurance
would save 45,000 lives a year. Unfortunately, just having insurance doesn't automatically improve people's health.
Sometimes more medical care doesn't really help. Sometimes people don't go to doctors when they should or
follow instructions (take medicine, alter lifestyles). Indeed, many people don't even sign up for insurance to which
they're entitled. An Urban Institute study estimated that 10.9 million people eligible for Medicaid or the
Children's Health Insurance Program in 2007 didn't enroll.
The 45,000 figure cited by Baucus is itself an unreliable statistical construct built on many assumptions.
It's based on a study of 9,004 people ages 17 to 64 who were examined between 1988 and 1994.
By 2000, 351 had died; of these, 60 were uninsured. The crude death rates among the insured
(3 percent of whom died) and uninsured (3.3 percent) were within the statistical margin of error.
After adjustments for age, income and other factors, the authors concluded that being uninsured
raises the risk of death by 40 percent. They then extrapolated this to the entire population by two techniques,
one producing an estimate of 35,327 premature deaths and another of 44,789.
This whole elaborate statistical edifice rests on a flimsy factual foundation. The point is not to deny
that the uninsured are more vulnerable (they are) or that extra insurance wouldn't help (it would).
The point is that estimating how much is extremely difficult. Advocates exaggerate the benefits.
Remember: Today's uninsured do receive care.
What about lower insurance premiums? Here's the actual CBO analysis:
"Premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law
individual market -- again with other factors held equal -- because the new policies would have to cover pre-existing medical
conditions and could not deny coverage to people with high expected costs for health care." The CBO added that it
couldn't predict premiums because so many factors might influence them.
It's true, as Baucus says, that the CBO estimated that new taxes and Medicare savings would cover the costs
of his original bill. But many Medicare "savings" are probably phony. Congress is likely to reverse them,
as in the past. Put in that category about $200 billion in "savings" over 10 years from lower reimbursement rates
for doctors (under the "sustainable growth rate" formula). Congress has repeatedly prevented those cuts from occurring.
A separate $180 billion in "savings" from lower reimbursement for hospitals and other providers are similarly suspect.
Together, these items provide about half the plan's financing.
Americans worried about this legislation may not know its details or may even be misinformed.
Still, their skepticism is justified. Grandiose rhetoric obscures unflattering reality. The proposals
don't force the major structural changes in the delivery system that might curb uncontrolled health spending,
which is the central problem. The bills that Congress is considering might marginally improve Americans' health
but would worsen the federal budget outlook and squeeze other public and private spending.
Whatever bragging rights result will quickly erode in the face of the health system's continuing problems.
--------------------
This sort of straight shooting is what has the WaPo much more
respected than the NY Times among independent and/or conservative voters.
So for the sake of argument lets say it's "only" 18,000 deaths per year. That's six 911s per year. And while I'm "nervous" too about what might come out of a Congress at least half full of corporate shills, doing nothing is NOT an option... (At least not for bleeding heart Liberals like me.)
Further Baucus and his "Bill" can go to Hades. Without a STRONG LOW COST PUBLIC OPTION AS A CHOICE I would rather die or go to jail than pay one dime to the blood-suckers from hell (Health Insurance Execs) who the right bows and scrapes to.
Just my opinion.
Nobody is making you give insurance companies or executives a dime...yet.
And, since the Public Option didn't make it out of Senate Committee
today it looks like it's (as I said) DOA. Now to find what can agreed upon.
And, since the Public Option didn't make it out of Senate Committee
today it looks like it's (as I said) DOA. Now to find what can agreed upon.
If there is no way to keep costs down, then what exactly can be accomplished? I'm deeply disappointed today!
If a final bill doesn't have a STRONG LOW COST Public Option I am urging the House to vote it down. If they want to pass Private Insurance Reform without a Mandate we could agree on that. BUT... it will mean NOTHING. Because very shortly people would realize those "New" premiums for those previously denied care (pre-existing conditions), and no caps on coverage, and not dropping people when they get sick, will be through the roof and tantamount to denying care, etc.
If REAL HealthCare Reform does not pass we Libs will have to go back to the drawing board and continue the good fight. But you can bet your bottom dollar we'll hold accountable those Blue Dogs who let this happen. "No prob:" I'm sure lots of those who work for the Health Insurance Lobby instead of their constituents will say. Que sera sera. There will be a place I'm sure in the Republican Party for them next time around and all those who defeated the Liberal agenda will give a big hurrah just before they open the next envelop from their Health Insurance provider. Then there will be only the sound of grinding teeth.
Enjoy your "victory" you guys.
And as far as I'm concerned by the time those in Red States realize just what they "Won" and suddenly want to make a deal with us? My only answer would be unprintable.
If REAL HealthCare Reform does not pass we Libs will have to go back to the drawing board and continue the good fight. But you can bet your bottom dollar we'll hold accountable those Blue Dogs who let this happen. "No prob:" I'm sure lots of those who work for the Health Insurance Lobby instead of their constituents will say. Que sera sera. There will be a place I'm sure in the Republican Party for them next time around and all those who defeated the Liberal agenda will give a big hurrah just before they open the next envelop from their Health Insurance provider. Then there will be only the sound of grinding teeth.
Enjoy your "victory" you guys.
And as far as I'm concerned by the time those in Red States realize just what they "Won" and suddenly want to make a deal with us? My only answer would be unprintable.
It seems healthcare conservatives are in the majority:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123332/Many-U.S...x?version=print
GALLUP®
September 30, 2009
Many in U.S. See Health Insurance as Personal Responsibility
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- In a recent Gallup survey, 89% of Republicans, 64% of independents, and 61% of Americans
overall say Americans themselves -- rather than the government -- have the primary responsibility for ensuring
that they have health insurance. Six in 10 Democrats say the government should be primarily responsible.
...............
Those pesky, self-reliant Americans...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123332/Many-U.S...x?version=print
GALLUP®
September 30, 2009
Many in U.S. See Health Insurance as Personal Responsibility
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- In a recent Gallup survey, 89% of Republicans, 64% of independents, and 61% of Americans
overall say Americans themselves -- rather than the government -- have the primary responsibility for ensuring
that they have health insurance. Six in 10 Democrats say the government should be primarily responsible.
...............
Those pesky, self-reliant Americans...
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Sep 30 2009, 01:47 PM)
It seems healthcare conservatives are in the majority:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123332/Many-U.S...x?version=print
GALLUP®
September 30, 2009
Many in U.S. See Health Insurance as Personal Responsibility
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- In a recent Gallup survey, 89% of Republicans, 64% of independents, and 61% of Americans
overall say Americans themselves -- rather than the government -- have the primary responsibility for ensuring
that they have health insurance. Six in 10 Democrats say the government should be primarily responsible.
...............
Those pesky, self-reliant Americans...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123332/Many-U.S...x?version=print
GALLUP®
September 30, 2009
Many in U.S. See Health Insurance as Personal Responsibility
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- In a recent Gallup survey, 89% of Republicans, 64% of independents, and 61% of Americans
overall say Americans themselves -- rather than the government -- have the primary responsibility for ensuring
that they have health insurance. Six in 10 Democrats say the government should be primarily responsible.
...............
Those pesky, self-reliant Americans...
I have health insurance
It is now $2750 a month
In just five years that will go up to $4350 a month with me not lifting a finger or sending in any bill
In just tens years it will jum to $10,000 a MONTH
while indianhead has almost FREE
no wonder indianhead wants no change
he is MOOCHING off the people right now, after lazing around the last 58 out of 60 or so years to get the almost free MOOCHING he is getting
hump a few chicks and Bill Clinton is President
It's good to be self-absorbed like his is.
Oops...the sausage-making is greasy; or, another nail in the health-care coffin...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9093001752.html
Effort to Restrict Abortion Coverage in Health-Care Bill Fails
Senate Committee Also Looking to Lighten Package's Tax Burden on Nation's Seniors
By Ceci Connolly, Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 30, 2009; 12:31 PM
Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee defeated an attempt Wednesday to add further restrictions
on abortion coverage to a sweeping health-care reform bill.
On a 13-10 vote, the panel rejected an amendment by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that would have required
women participating in a new insurance market known as an exchange to purchase a separate policy covering abortion services.
Also Wednesday, aides to committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said he was looking to revise a
key provision of his health reform package in light of a new analysis showing that it would impose a
particularly heavy tax burden on people over 65.
...
...make that 2 nails.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9093001752.html
Effort to Restrict Abortion Coverage in Health-Care Bill Fails
Senate Committee Also Looking to Lighten Package's Tax Burden on Nation's Seniors
By Ceci Connolly, Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 30, 2009; 12:31 PM
Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee defeated an attempt Wednesday to add further restrictions
on abortion coverage to a sweeping health-care reform bill.
On a 13-10 vote, the panel rejected an amendment by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that would have required
women participating in a new insurance market known as an exchange to purchase a separate policy covering abortion services.
Also Wednesday, aides to committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said he was looking to revise a
key provision of his health reform package in light of a new analysis showing that it would impose a
particularly heavy tax burden on people over 65.
...
...make that 2 nails.
you indeed are Minnie the Moocher
what with your almost free insurance while everyone else dies
what with your almost free insurance while everyone else dies
La. Gov. Bobby Jindal has an editorial in the WaPo today that makes some sense:The Conservative Case for Reform.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Oct 5 2009, 08:35 AM)
La. Gov. Bobby Jindal has an editorial in the WaPo today that makes some sense:The Conservative Case for Reform.
Bobby Brady Jingles sticks voodoo needles in an ugly doll(one that looks like him while he spews green vomit doing an exorcism)
Every try discussing points in legislation? Policy? Delivery systems?
I see where the CBO can't even estimate the cost of the Baucus Bill
because the thing is so vague. Is this what the "Trust Me" administration
has come to? Open wide for the pill...it's good for you...I promise...
What? Read the prescription (bill)? Show you the PDR reference and the affiliated information?
No, no, no...we must hurry...we have so many other presciptions for America.
What? No, don't ask...just take it...and another...and another...and another...
it's good for you...it's good...for you...it's good...good...good...hope...change...
I see where the CBO can't even estimate the cost of the Baucus Bill
because the thing is so vague. Is this what the "Trust Me" administration
has come to? Open wide for the pill...it's good for you...I promise...
What? Read the prescription (bill)? Show you the PDR reference and the affiliated information?
No, no, no...we must hurry...we have so many other presciptions for America.
What? No, don't ask...just take it...and another...and another...and another...
it's good for you...it's good...for you...it's good...good...good...hope...change...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1254848091...ays_us_page_one
...
A new proposal by Sen. Tom Carper would spell out how to boost competition in the private market by enacting government-run plans at the state level. States could act alone or in concert with others to gain more leverage in the marketplace, and would be bound by the same rules established for private companies using the national insurance exchange envisioned by the Senate Finance bill. Another option would entail states opening their workers' employee-benefit plans to the general public.
The Delaware Democrat's plan won praise from some in his party Tuesday as a way of bridging differences among them.
"Conceptually, having the states take responsibility makes a great deal of sense," said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a key voice for moderate Democrats. "It is important that we really take a close look at this." He noted that states are already in the health-insurance business because they administer Medicaid and other federal-state programs.
Mr. Nelson said state health plans could compete alongside the nonprofit cooperatives. Another Democratic centrist, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, said the Carper proposal was "very constructive."
...
But one key Republican in the debate, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, cast doubt on the Carper idea. She favors creating a federally run health plan as a fallback option that would come into force only if other changes to the system fail to expand coverage as expected. "A fallback can work and would work, in the event the private insurance industry failed to produce results," she said.
Republican leaders oppose a public plan and co-ops, saying both would encourage a government takeover of health care instead of harnessing market forces to reduce costs and improve quality.
The public-plan issue is one of several likely to arise when Democratic leaders attempt to bring a health bill to the Senate floor. Others include the burden on lower-income Americans, many of whom would be required to carry health insurance, and the tax increases proposed to pay for subsidies and other elements of the bill.
President Barack Obama has long said he favors a government-run health-insurance plan as a way to boost competition. The House bill is likely to include such a plan, but the Senate Finance Committee twice rejected the idea last week, with panel Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) leading the opponents.
Ms. Snowe said she hasn't made up her mind about how she will vote on the Finance bill, and suggested her vote could change once it comes to the floor. "It's all about what I'm comfortable with at the end of the day," she said. "Whatever my vote is in committee will be my vote that day. It doesn't mean it will be my vote always."
----------------------------
It's nice to know there are moderate to conservative Democrats that are not drinking the Kool-aid...
speaking of which (for those black-helicopter-watchers out there), how is it the president's NSA is named Jim Jones?
BTW, it was actually Flavor-Aid he poisoned...but that's being kept secret...in the black helicopter hanger at Area 51.
...
A new proposal by Sen. Tom Carper would spell out how to boost competition in the private market by enacting government-run plans at the state level. States could act alone or in concert with others to gain more leverage in the marketplace, and would be bound by the same rules established for private companies using the national insurance exchange envisioned by the Senate Finance bill. Another option would entail states opening their workers' employee-benefit plans to the general public.
The Delaware Democrat's plan won praise from some in his party Tuesday as a way of bridging differences among them.
"Conceptually, having the states take responsibility makes a great deal of sense," said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a key voice for moderate Democrats. "It is important that we really take a close look at this." He noted that states are already in the health-insurance business because they administer Medicaid and other federal-state programs.
Mr. Nelson said state health plans could compete alongside the nonprofit cooperatives. Another Democratic centrist, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, said the Carper proposal was "very constructive."
...
But one key Republican in the debate, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, cast doubt on the Carper idea. She favors creating a federally run health plan as a fallback option that would come into force only if other changes to the system fail to expand coverage as expected. "A fallback can work and would work, in the event the private insurance industry failed to produce results," she said.
Republican leaders oppose a public plan and co-ops, saying both would encourage a government takeover of health care instead of harnessing market forces to reduce costs and improve quality.
The public-plan issue is one of several likely to arise when Democratic leaders attempt to bring a health bill to the Senate floor. Others include the burden on lower-income Americans, many of whom would be required to carry health insurance, and the tax increases proposed to pay for subsidies and other elements of the bill.
President Barack Obama has long said he favors a government-run health-insurance plan as a way to boost competition. The House bill is likely to include such a plan, but the Senate Finance Committee twice rejected the idea last week, with panel Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) leading the opponents.
Ms. Snowe said she hasn't made up her mind about how she will vote on the Finance bill, and suggested her vote could change once it comes to the floor. "It's all about what I'm comfortable with at the end of the day," she said. "Whatever my vote is in committee will be my vote that day. It doesn't mean it will be my vote always."
----------------------------
It's nice to know there are moderate to conservative Democrats that are not drinking the Kool-aid...
speaking of which (for those black-helicopter-watchers out there), how is it the president's NSA is named Jim Jones?
BTW, it was actually Flavor-Aid he poisoned...but that's being kept secret...in the black helicopter hanger at Area 51.
Divide and conquer. The smaller the pools the less bargaining power. Typical Insurance Exec lackey tactics. Make the People's Insurance too weak to compete.
I have a better idea. Let the Blue Dogs stand up for their own rhetoric and vote to ban Medicare and Social Security in their Districts. And if they (literally) survive I'll take their ideas seriously. Not agree mind you, just take them seriously.
Oh yeah... and let the Republican Governors in their States join them and go one step further and Ban SS and Medicare by Executive fiat. You know, to save their entire States from those evil government run programs.
I'd really take them seriously as I watch the News at Eleven of the bizarre spontaneous foot race between crowds of oldsters (some in wheelchairs) and those brave public servants.
I have a better idea. Let the Blue Dogs stand up for their own rhetoric and vote to ban Medicare and Social Security in their Districts. And if they (literally) survive I'll take their ideas seriously. Not agree mind you, just take them seriously.
Oh yeah... and let the Republican Governors in their States join them and go one step further and Ban SS and Medicare by Executive fiat. You know, to save their entire States from those evil government run programs.
I'd really take them seriously as I watch the News at Eleven of the bizarre spontaneous foot race between crowds of oldsters (some in wheelchairs) and those brave public servants.
Actually the federal government is cutting Medicare from an 80% share to a 63% share
according to The Baton Rouge Advocate of Oct. 6:
"The federal government wants to decrease its 80 percent match to 63 percent.
That would mean a $480 million hit to the state’s budget in the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2010."
Any false statement that conservatives want to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid is just that:
A Red Herring
Most conservatives want to cut the waste out of both and make them fiscally sound.
Liberal projections of "what conservatives want" just doesn't wash. It does not follow that if you don't want
a $1 trillion new goverment heathcare system, you want to get rid of what covers poor kids and senior citizens - sorry.
Hey, try the arguement how government run health care is so much better...
but don't keep your eyes open too long or you'll find stuff like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...apped-wind.html
Grandmother dies of ovarian cancer after being sent home FIVE times 'with trapped wind'
By Cher Thornhill
Last updated at 12:34 PM on 07th October 2009
A grandmother dying of ovarian cancer was sent home five times by medics
who said her crippling pain was caused by trapped wind.
Barbara Collins, 68, was bed ridden for months with agonising pain and bowel problems,
classic signs of the killer disease, but sent home with only laxatives.
The mother of four was correctly diagnosed with ovarian cancer a staggering four months
after her first visit to Manchester Royal Infirmary, and died 10 days later.
Tragic: Barbara Collins, pictured left with daughter Angela Stubbs, died of ovarian cancer
after medics failed to spot the disease at five different appointments
Mrs Collins’ family criticised the medics, who they say made her feel like a nuisance.
She could have survived if only her cancer had been diagnosed sooner, they claim.
Daughter, Angela Stubbs, 44, from Partington, Greater Manchester, said: ‘It was tragic.
‘My mum went from being very active to lying in bed in pain in the space of a few months.
‘She was in agony and had terrible bowel problems, but time after time they gave her laxatives
and sent her home - no one listened to her or to us.
‘When they finally did diagnose her ovarian cancer it had spread to her lungs and bowel
but they said she could have chemotherapy - we were horrified when she died.
‘They call ovarian cancer the silent killer but my mum had the classic symptoms of the disease.
‘I feel so angry about the weeks she spent in bed and in pain. I hope people will hear about the
symptoms and might be able to save their relatives.’
Mrs Collins first visited Manchester Royal Infirmary on April 6.
Medics failed to pick up the condition during two separate visits to the walk-in centre and a visit to accident and emergency.
The grandmother of ten was even sent home without a diagnosis after being admitted to the hospital
for five days following a referral from her GP.
Mrs Collins was later called for a ‘non-urgent scan’ which also failed to identify the life-threatening
illness and was sent home with the message that her crippling pain was simply due to trapped wind.
The tumour was only diagnosed on 31 July by which time it had spread to her lungs and her bowel.
Mrs Collins died at St Mary's Hospital on August 10.
Hospital and health bosses have now launched a joint investigation into Mrs. Collins’ care.
A spokesman for Central Manchester Hospitals, which runs Manchester Royal Infirmary, said:
‘We extend our condolences to the family of Mrs Collins - we are very sorry for the distress caused to them.
‘We can confirm that we have been in contact with the family and are currently in the process
of setting up a meeting to discuss their concerns with key clinicians and a representative from
our Patient Advice and Liaison service.
‘We have also launched a review of Mrs Collins' care and will provide the family with a detailed report
on the outcome of the review.’
A spokeswoman for NHS Manchester, which runs the walk-in centre, said: ‘Our sympathies are with Barbara
Collins' family at this time. We have launched an investigation into the case.’
The family have written to health bosses listing Mrs Collins' attempts to get help.
----------------------------
In case you think the case is rare...in the blog attached to the story were these comments:
My dad spent 2 years going back and forth to the doctor complaining of bowel and gut problems and was repeatedly told he had piles........then he died of stomach cancer after a tumour the size of a grapefruit was found in his stomach
- Anon, England, 07/10/2009 19:39
They will carry out a review and nothing will happen, there is no accountability. They should remember who pays them and that is us, the patients..However we are all really a number to them. Try walking in if they haven't got your notes in front of them, they don't have a clue who you are. Having said that there are some great, hard working GPs out there. However the point is that this older lady suffered and died as a result of negligence.
The reletives should try and sue them, the only thing they understand is money. Although it is difficult to do because of the expense, and lack of legal aid. Still I am sure there is something they can do. As I had said the only thing they understand is money.
- Marie, Lancs, 07/10/2009 19:27
this story is very sad but unfortunately mistakes are going to happen when doctors are overworked and extremely tired. I know this from experience.
- nal, london, 07/10/2009 19:01
Just wait until the next government, whatever its colour starts cutting billions of pounds off ALL hospital budgets. We'll remember this as the good old days!
My sympathies to this poor lady's family for their tragic loss and my sadness for all the pain the poor lady suffered.
- Gill, Lincoln, 07/10/2009 19:00
--------------------------------
Oh yeah...let's get government run health care like England...oh yeah!
Okay...so am I: (1) racist (2) right -wing radical (3) wanting the president to fail or (4) attended all my classes from modern history to math.
according to The Baton Rouge Advocate of Oct. 6:
"The federal government wants to decrease its 80 percent match to 63 percent.
That would mean a $480 million hit to the state’s budget in the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2010."
Any false statement that conservatives want to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid is just that:
A Red Herring
Most conservatives want to cut the waste out of both and make them fiscally sound.
Liberal projections of "what conservatives want" just doesn't wash. It does not follow that if you don't want
a $1 trillion new goverment heathcare system, you want to get rid of what covers poor kids and senior citizens - sorry.
Hey, try the arguement how government run health care is so much better...
but don't keep your eyes open too long or you'll find stuff like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...apped-wind.html
Grandmother dies of ovarian cancer after being sent home FIVE times 'with trapped wind'
By Cher Thornhill
Last updated at 12:34 PM on 07th October 2009
A grandmother dying of ovarian cancer was sent home five times by medics
who said her crippling pain was caused by trapped wind.
Barbara Collins, 68, was bed ridden for months with agonising pain and bowel problems,
classic signs of the killer disease, but sent home with only laxatives.
The mother of four was correctly diagnosed with ovarian cancer a staggering four months
after her first visit to Manchester Royal Infirmary, and died 10 days later.
Tragic: Barbara Collins, pictured left with daughter Angela Stubbs, died of ovarian cancer
after medics failed to spot the disease at five different appointments
Mrs Collins’ family criticised the medics, who they say made her feel like a nuisance.
She could have survived if only her cancer had been diagnosed sooner, they claim.
Daughter, Angela Stubbs, 44, from Partington, Greater Manchester, said: ‘It was tragic.
‘My mum went from being very active to lying in bed in pain in the space of a few months.
‘She was in agony and had terrible bowel problems, but time after time they gave her laxatives
and sent her home - no one listened to her or to us.
‘When they finally did diagnose her ovarian cancer it had spread to her lungs and bowel
but they said she could have chemotherapy - we were horrified when she died.
‘They call ovarian cancer the silent killer but my mum had the classic symptoms of the disease.
‘I feel so angry about the weeks she spent in bed and in pain. I hope people will hear about the
symptoms and might be able to save their relatives.’
Mrs Collins first visited Manchester Royal Infirmary on April 6.
Medics failed to pick up the condition during two separate visits to the walk-in centre and a visit to accident and emergency.
The grandmother of ten was even sent home without a diagnosis after being admitted to the hospital
for five days following a referral from her GP.
Mrs Collins was later called for a ‘non-urgent scan’ which also failed to identify the life-threatening
illness and was sent home with the message that her crippling pain was simply due to trapped wind.
The tumour was only diagnosed on 31 July by which time it had spread to her lungs and her bowel.
Mrs Collins died at St Mary's Hospital on August 10.
Hospital and health bosses have now launched a joint investigation into Mrs. Collins’ care.
A spokesman for Central Manchester Hospitals, which runs Manchester Royal Infirmary, said:
‘We extend our condolences to the family of Mrs Collins - we are very sorry for the distress caused to them.
‘We can confirm that we have been in contact with the family and are currently in the process
of setting up a meeting to discuss their concerns with key clinicians and a representative from
our Patient Advice and Liaison service.
‘We have also launched a review of Mrs Collins' care and will provide the family with a detailed report
on the outcome of the review.’
A spokeswoman for NHS Manchester, which runs the walk-in centre, said: ‘Our sympathies are with Barbara
Collins' family at this time. We have launched an investigation into the case.’
The family have written to health bosses listing Mrs Collins' attempts to get help.
----------------------------
In case you think the case is rare...in the blog attached to the story were these comments:
My dad spent 2 years going back and forth to the doctor complaining of bowel and gut problems and was repeatedly told he had piles........then he died of stomach cancer after a tumour the size of a grapefruit was found in his stomach
- Anon, England, 07/10/2009 19:39
They will carry out a review and nothing will happen, there is no accountability. They should remember who pays them and that is us, the patients..However we are all really a number to them. Try walking in if they haven't got your notes in front of them, they don't have a clue who you are. Having said that there are some great, hard working GPs out there. However the point is that this older lady suffered and died as a result of negligence.
The reletives should try and sue them, the only thing they understand is money. Although it is difficult to do because of the expense, and lack of legal aid. Still I am sure there is something they can do. As I had said the only thing they understand is money.
- Marie, Lancs, 07/10/2009 19:27
this story is very sad but unfortunately mistakes are going to happen when doctors are overworked and extremely tired. I know this from experience.
- nal, london, 07/10/2009 19:01
Just wait until the next government, whatever its colour starts cutting billions of pounds off ALL hospital budgets. We'll remember this as the good old days!
My sympathies to this poor lady's family for their tragic loss and my sadness for all the pain the poor lady suffered.
- Gill, Lincoln, 07/10/2009 19:00
--------------------------------
Oh yeah...let's get government run health care like England...oh yeah!
Okay...so am I: (1) racist (2) right -wing radical (3) wanting the president to fail or (4) attended all my classes from modern history to math.
You're running rings around me in regards to Red Herrings.
No system is perfect. But what's most imperfect is a health care system run for profit.
I suppose you might imagine Bro what I think of that and of those whose desire for profit has anything to do with stories like the above tragedy.
No system is perfect. But what's most imperfect is a health care system run for profit.
I suppose you might imagine Bro what I think of that and of those whose desire for profit has anything to do with stories like the above tragedy.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/files/2009/10/obam.jpg
Ricardo Alonso Zaldivar of the Associated Press is not rolling over and playing brain-dead on the health insurance reform issue,
reporting today: “A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class.
But that family would pay $7,110 to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.”
Bu-bu-but I thought they said Obamacare would get a big subsidy.
Zaldivar: “The family would get a tax credit of $3,970 to help pay for a policy worth $11,080. But the balance due — $7,110 — is real money.
Maybe it’s less than the rent, but it’s probably more than a car loan payment.”
That is nearly 50% higher than my payments on my Mustang.
I am not complaining. I’ll take my health over my Mustang any day of the week.
But the promise to have the government deliver something cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector is… — excuse me,
I have to take my lunch break. This window is closed for the next hour.
Zaldivar used a calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation to determine the premiums.
“Kaiser’s calculator doesn’t take into account co-payments and deductibles that could add hundreds of dollars, even several thousand,
to a family’s total medical expenses. A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates total expenses could average 20 percent of income
for some families by 2016,” Zaldivar reported.
To say the debate is over and we just have to pass something now, now, now is vapid and intellectually dishonest —
and ruinous to our nation and our health care system.
The AP story in full:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Many middle-class Americans would still struggle to pay for health insurance despite efforts by
President Barack Obama and Democrats to make coverage more affordable.
The legislation advancing in Congress would require all Americans to get insurance – through an employer, a government program
or by buying it themselves. But new tax credits to help with premiums won’t go far enough for everyone. Some middle-class families
purchasing their own coverage through new insurance exchanges could find it out of reach.
Lawmakers recognize the problem.
“For some people it’s going to be a heavy lift,” said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. “We’re doing our best to make sure it’s not an impossible lift.”
Added Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: “We have no certainty as to whether or not these plans are going to be affordable.”
Both are on the Senate Finance Committee, which finished writing a health care bill on Friday.
A new online tool from the Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the predicament.
The Health Reform Subsidy Calculator provides ballpark estimates of what households of varying incomes and ages would pay
under the different Democratic health care bills. The legislation is still a work in progress and the calculator only a rough guide.
Nonetheless, the results are revealing.
A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class. But that family would pay $7,110
to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
The family would get a tax credit of $3,970 to help pay for a policy worth $11,080. But the balance due – $7,110 – is real money.
Maybe it’s less than the rent, but it’s probably more than a car loan payment.
Kaiser’s calculator doesn’t take into account co-payments and deductibles that could add hundreds of dollars, even several thousand,
to a family’s total medical expenses. A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates total expenses could average 20 percent of income
for some families by 2016.
The issue of affordability “has been lurking in the background and is nowhere near resolved yet,” said Kaiser’s president, Drew Altman.
“It’s tricky because it doesn’t take a lot of people to make affordability a political problem. It just takes some very visible and understandable cases.”
At the root of the concerns is the push to cut the overall cost of health care overhaul legislation. Congress is trimming the budget
for subsidies to meet Obama’s target of $900 billion over 10 years – as the Baucus plan does. It means premiums will be higher
than under earlier Democratic proposals.
The trade-off directly affects people who buy their own coverage. For those with job-based insurance, employers
would continue to cover most of the costs.
Most of the uninsured are in households headed by someone who’s self-employed or works at a business
that doesn’t provide coverage. It’s this group that Democrats are trying to help.
Because health insurance is so expensive, lawmakers recognize that if they’re going to pass a law requiring all Americans to get coverage,
government has to defray the cost. The size of those subsidies makes an enormous difference.
Under the Baucus bill, a family of four making $63,000 would have to pay 11 percent of its income for health insurance,
according to Kaiser. By comparison, an earlier bill from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee with
more generous subsidies required the same hypothetical family to pay about 7 percent of its income for premiums – a difference of about $2,500.
“This is not the loaves and the fishes – you can’t just throw some subsidies out there and expect that will take care of everybody’s needs,”
said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University professor who studies the insurance market for people buying their own coverage.
The legislation provides the most generous subsidies to those at or near the poverty line, about $22,000 for a family of four.
That’s where the problem is concentrated because about three-fourths of the uninsured are in households making less than twice the poverty level.
But as income rises, the subsidies taper off.
For a family of four making $45,000, federal subsidies would pick up 71 percent of the premium under the Baucus plan, according to the Kaiser calculator.
For a family with an income of $63,000, the subsidies would only cover 36 percent of the premium.
A family making $90,000 would get no help.
Pollitz said the subsidies disappear rapidly for households with solid middle-class incomes. That could be tricky
for a self-employed individual who has a particularly good year financially.
Another problem is that people won’t be able to get the insurance tax credits immediately after the bill passes.
To hold down costs, the assistance won’t come until 2013, after the next presidential election.
White House officials say that while Obama wants the cost of the final bill to stay manageable, it has to provide affordable coverage.
“The president is absolutely committed to making this affordable. That’s the whole point,” said Linda Douglass,
spokeswoman for the White House health reform office.
Douglass said it’s premature to draw any conclusions while the bill is being shaped in Congress.
But House leaders are also cutting back their legislation to meet Obama’s target.
Acknowledging the affordability problem, Baucus’ committee voted Friday to exempt millions of people
from the requirement to buy insurance and reduce penalties for those who fail to do so. But that would mean
leaving at least 2 million more uninsured – not very satisfying to Democrats who started out with the goal of coverage for all.
“I think we’ve got to do something about it,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “We’ve got to make sure health insurance is affordable for the middle class.”
--------------------------
A massive redistribution of wealth, a massive new bureaucracy, with the potential for the
astronomical premiums of states that already require insurers to over look pre-existing conditions.
And, people whose states got into their mess now want to take us down to subsidize them.
The race to the bottom continues. Change? Nope, not the least bit...still going down.
Well maybe, we are picking up speed.
Ricardo Alonso Zaldivar of the Associated Press is not rolling over and playing brain-dead on the health insurance reform issue,
reporting today: “A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class.
But that family would pay $7,110 to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.”
Bu-bu-but I thought they said Obamacare would get a big subsidy.
Zaldivar: “The family would get a tax credit of $3,970 to help pay for a policy worth $11,080. But the balance due — $7,110 — is real money.
Maybe it’s less than the rent, but it’s probably more than a car loan payment.”
That is nearly 50% higher than my payments on my Mustang.
I am not complaining. I’ll take my health over my Mustang any day of the week.
But the promise to have the government deliver something cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector is… — excuse me,
I have to take my lunch break. This window is closed for the next hour.
Zaldivar used a calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation to determine the premiums.
“Kaiser’s calculator doesn’t take into account co-payments and deductibles that could add hundreds of dollars, even several thousand,
to a family’s total medical expenses. A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates total expenses could average 20 percent of income
for some families by 2016,” Zaldivar reported.
To say the debate is over and we just have to pass something now, now, now is vapid and intellectually dishonest —
and ruinous to our nation and our health care system.
The AP story in full:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Many middle-class Americans would still struggle to pay for health insurance despite efforts by
President Barack Obama and Democrats to make coverage more affordable.
The legislation advancing in Congress would require all Americans to get insurance – through an employer, a government program
or by buying it themselves. But new tax credits to help with premiums won’t go far enough for everyone. Some middle-class families
purchasing their own coverage through new insurance exchanges could find it out of reach.
Lawmakers recognize the problem.
“For some people it’s going to be a heavy lift,” said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. “We’re doing our best to make sure it’s not an impossible lift.”
Added Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: “We have no certainty as to whether or not these plans are going to be affordable.”
Both are on the Senate Finance Committee, which finished writing a health care bill on Friday.
A new online tool from the Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the predicament.
The Health Reform Subsidy Calculator provides ballpark estimates of what households of varying incomes and ages would pay
under the different Democratic health care bills. The legislation is still a work in progress and the calculator only a rough guide.
Nonetheless, the results are revealing.
A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class. But that family would pay $7,110
to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
The family would get a tax credit of $3,970 to help pay for a policy worth $11,080. But the balance due – $7,110 – is real money.
Maybe it’s less than the rent, but it’s probably more than a car loan payment.
Kaiser’s calculator doesn’t take into account co-payments and deductibles that could add hundreds of dollars, even several thousand,
to a family’s total medical expenses. A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates total expenses could average 20 percent of income
for some families by 2016.
The issue of affordability “has been lurking in the background and is nowhere near resolved yet,” said Kaiser’s president, Drew Altman.
“It’s tricky because it doesn’t take a lot of people to make affordability a political problem. It just takes some very visible and understandable cases.”
At the root of the concerns is the push to cut the overall cost of health care overhaul legislation. Congress is trimming the budget
for subsidies to meet Obama’s target of $900 billion over 10 years – as the Baucus plan does. It means premiums will be higher
than under earlier Democratic proposals.
The trade-off directly affects people who buy their own coverage. For those with job-based insurance, employers
would continue to cover most of the costs.
Most of the uninsured are in households headed by someone who’s self-employed or works at a business
that doesn’t provide coverage. It’s this group that Democrats are trying to help.
Because health insurance is so expensive, lawmakers recognize that if they’re going to pass a law requiring all Americans to get coverage,
government has to defray the cost. The size of those subsidies makes an enormous difference.
Under the Baucus bill, a family of four making $63,000 would have to pay 11 percent of its income for health insurance,
according to Kaiser. By comparison, an earlier bill from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee with
more generous subsidies required the same hypothetical family to pay about 7 percent of its income for premiums – a difference of about $2,500.
“This is not the loaves and the fishes – you can’t just throw some subsidies out there and expect that will take care of everybody’s needs,”
said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University professor who studies the insurance market for people buying their own coverage.
The legislation provides the most generous subsidies to those at or near the poverty line, about $22,000 for a family of four.
That’s where the problem is concentrated because about three-fourths of the uninsured are in households making less than twice the poverty level.
But as income rises, the subsidies taper off.
For a family of four making $45,000, federal subsidies would pick up 71 percent of the premium under the Baucus plan, according to the Kaiser calculator.
For a family with an income of $63,000, the subsidies would only cover 36 percent of the premium.
A family making $90,000 would get no help.
Pollitz said the subsidies disappear rapidly for households with solid middle-class incomes. That could be tricky
for a self-employed individual who has a particularly good year financially.
Another problem is that people won’t be able to get the insurance tax credits immediately after the bill passes.
To hold down costs, the assistance won’t come until 2013, after the next presidential election.
White House officials say that while Obama wants the cost of the final bill to stay manageable, it has to provide affordable coverage.
“The president is absolutely committed to making this affordable. That’s the whole point,” said Linda Douglass,
spokeswoman for the White House health reform office.
Douglass said it’s premature to draw any conclusions while the bill is being shaped in Congress.
But House leaders are also cutting back their legislation to meet Obama’s target.
Acknowledging the affordability problem, Baucus’ committee voted Friday to exempt millions of people
from the requirement to buy insurance and reduce penalties for those who fail to do so. But that would mean
leaving at least 2 million more uninsured – not very satisfying to Democrats who started out with the goal of coverage for all.
“I think we’ve got to do something about it,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “We’ve got to make sure health insurance is affordable for the middle class.”
--------------------------
A massive redistribution of wealth, a massive new bureaucracy, with the potential for the
astronomical premiums of states that already require insurers to over look pre-existing conditions.
And, people whose states got into their mess now want to take us down to subsidize them.
The race to the bottom continues. Change? Nope, not the least bit...still going down.
Well maybe, we are picking up speed.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Oct 10 2009, 10:13 AM)
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/files/2009/10/obam.jpg
Ricardo Alonso Zaldivar of the Associated Press is not rolling over and playing brain-dead on the health insurance reform issue,
reporting today: “A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class.
But that family would pay $7,110 to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.”
Bu-bu-but I thought they said Obamacare would get a big subsidy.
Zaldivar: “The family would get a tax credit of $3,970 to help pay for a policy worth $11,080. But the balance due — $7,110 — is real money.
Maybe it’s less than the rent, but it’s probably more than a car loan payment.”
That is nearly 50% higher than my payments on my Mustang.
I am not complaining. I’ll take my health over my Mustang any day of the week.
But the promise to have the government deliver something cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector is… — excuse me,
I have to take my lunch break. This window is closed for the next hour.
Zaldivar used a calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation to determine the premiums.
“Kaiser’s calculator doesn’t take into account co-payments and deductibles that could add hundreds of dollars, even several thousand,
to a family’s total medical expenses. A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates total expenses could average 20 percent of income
for some families by 2016,” Zaldivar reported.
To say the debate is over and we just have to pass something now, now, now is vapid and intellectually dishonest —
and ruinous to our nation and our health care system.
The AP story in full:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Many middle-class Americans would still struggle to pay for health insurance despite efforts by
President Barack Obama and Democrats to make coverage more affordable.
The legislation advancing in Congress would require all Americans to get insurance – through an employer, a government program
or by buying it themselves. But new tax credits to help with premiums won’t go far enough for everyone. Some middle-class families
purchasing their own coverage through new insurance exchanges could find it out of reach.
Lawmakers recognize the problem.
“For some people it’s going to be a heavy lift,” said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. “We’re doing our best to make sure it’s not an impossible lift.”
Added Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: “We have no certainty as to whether or not these plans are going to be affordable.”
Both are on the Senate Finance Committee, which finished writing a health care bill on Friday.
A new online tool from the Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the predicament.
The Health Reform Subsidy Calculator provides ballpark estimates of what households of varying incomes and ages would pay
under the different Democratic health care bills. The legislation is still a work in progress and the calculator only a rough guide.
Nonetheless, the results are revealing.
A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class. But that family would pay $7,110
to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
The family would get a tax credit of $3,970 to help pay for a policy worth $11,080. But the balance due – $7,110 – is real money.
Maybe it’s less than the rent, but it’s probably more than a car loan payment.
Kaiser’s calculator doesn’t take into account co-payments and deductibles that could add hundreds of dollars, even several thousand,
to a family’s total medical expenses. A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates total expenses could average 20 percent of income
for some families by 2016.
The issue of affordability “has been lurking in the background and is nowhere near resolved yet,” said Kaiser’s president, Drew Altman.
“It’s tricky because it doesn’t take a lot of people to make affordability a political problem. It just takes some very visible and understandable cases.”
At the root of the concerns is the push to cut the overall cost of health care overhaul legislation. Congress is trimming the budget
for subsidies to meet Obama’s target of $900 billion over 10 years – as the Baucus plan does. It means premiums will be higher
than under earlier Democratic proposals.
The trade-off directly affects people who buy their own coverage. For those with job-based insurance, employers
would continue to cover most of the costs.
Most of the uninsured are in households headed by someone who’s self-employed or works at a business
that doesn’t provide coverage. It’s this group that Democrats are trying to help.
Because health insurance is so expensive, lawmakers recognize that if they’re going to pass a law requiring all Americans to get coverage,
government has to defray the cost. The size of those subsidies makes an enormous difference.
Under the Baucus bill, a family of four making $63,000 would have to pay 11 percent of its income for health insurance,
according to Kaiser. By comparison, an earlier bill from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee with
more generous subsidies required the same hypothetical family to pay about 7 percent of its income for premiums – a difference of about $2,500.
“This is not the loaves and the fishes – you can’t just throw some subsidies out there and expect that will take care of everybody’s needs,”
said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University professor who studies the insurance market for people buying their own coverage.
The legislation provides the most generous subsidies to those at or near the poverty line, about $22,000 for a family of four.
That’s where the problem is concentrated because about three-fourths of the uninsured are in households making less than twice the poverty level.
But as income rises, the subsidies taper off.
For a family of four making $45,000, federal subsidies would pick up 71 percent of the premium under the Baucus plan, according to the Kaiser calculator.
For a family with an income of $63,000, the subsidies would only cover 36 percent of the premium.
A family making $90,000 would get no help.
Pollitz said the subsidies disappear rapidly for households with solid middle-class incomes. That could be tricky
for a self-employed individual who has a particularly good year financially.
Another problem is that people won’t be able to get the insurance tax credits immediately after the bill passes.
To hold down costs, the assistance won’t come until 2013, after the next presidential election.
White House officials say that while Obama wants the cost of the final bill to stay manageable, it has to provide affordable coverage.
“The president is absolutely committed to making this affordable. That’s the whole point,” said Linda Douglass,
spokeswoman for the White House health reform office.
Douglass said it’s premature to draw any conclusions while the bill is being shaped in Congress.
But House leaders are also cutting back their legislation to meet Obama’s target.
Acknowledging the affordability problem, Baucus’ committee voted Friday to exempt millions of people
from the requirement to buy insurance and reduce penalties for those who fail to do so. But that would mean
leaving at least 2 million more uninsured – not very satisfying to Democrats who started out with the goal of coverage for all.
“I think we’ve got to do something about it,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “We’ve got to make sure health insurance is affordable for the middle class.”
--------------------------
A massive redistribution of wealth, a massive new bureaucracy, with the potential for the
astronomical premiums of states that already require insurers to over look pre-existing conditions.
And, people whose states got into their mess now want to take us down to subsidize them.
The race to the bottom continues. Change? Nope, not the least bit...still going down.
Well maybe, we are picking up speed.
Ricardo Alonso Zaldivar of the Associated Press is not rolling over and playing brain-dead on the health insurance reform issue,
reporting today: “A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class.
But that family would pay $7,110 to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.”
Bu-bu-but I thought they said Obamacare would get a big subsidy.
Zaldivar: “The family would get a tax credit of $3,970 to help pay for a policy worth $11,080. But the balance due — $7,110 — is real money.
Maybe it’s less than the rent, but it’s probably more than a car loan payment.”
That is nearly 50% higher than my payments on my Mustang.
I am not complaining. I’ll take my health over my Mustang any day of the week.
But the promise to have the government deliver something cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector is… — excuse me,
I have to take my lunch break. This window is closed for the next hour.
Zaldivar used a calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation to determine the premiums.
“Kaiser’s calculator doesn’t take into account co-payments and deductibles that could add hundreds of dollars, even several thousand,
to a family’s total medical expenses. A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates total expenses could average 20 percent of income
for some families by 2016,” Zaldivar reported.
To say the debate is over and we just have to pass something now, now, now is vapid and intellectually dishonest —
and ruinous to our nation and our health care system.
The AP story in full:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Many middle-class Americans would still struggle to pay for health insurance despite efforts by
President Barack Obama and Democrats to make coverage more affordable.
The legislation advancing in Congress would require all Americans to get insurance – through an employer, a government program
or by buying it themselves. But new tax credits to help with premiums won’t go far enough for everyone. Some middle-class families
purchasing their own coverage through new insurance exchanges could find it out of reach.
Lawmakers recognize the problem.
“For some people it’s going to be a heavy lift,” said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. “We’re doing our best to make sure it’s not an impossible lift.”
Added Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: “We have no certainty as to whether or not these plans are going to be affordable.”
Both are on the Senate Finance Committee, which finished writing a health care bill on Friday.
A new online tool from the Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the predicament.
The Health Reform Subsidy Calculator provides ballpark estimates of what households of varying incomes and ages would pay
under the different Democratic health care bills. The legislation is still a work in progress and the calculator only a rough guide.
Nonetheless, the results are revealing.
A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class. But that family would pay $7,110
to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
The family would get a tax credit of $3,970 to help pay for a policy worth $11,080. But the balance due – $7,110 – is real money.
Maybe it’s less than the rent, but it’s probably more than a car loan payment.
Kaiser’s calculator doesn’t take into account co-payments and deductibles that could add hundreds of dollars, even several thousand,
to a family’s total medical expenses. A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates total expenses could average 20 percent of income
for some families by 2016.
The issue of affordability “has been lurking in the background and is nowhere near resolved yet,” said Kaiser’s president, Drew Altman.
“It’s tricky because it doesn’t take a lot of people to make affordability a political problem. It just takes some very visible and understandable cases.”
At the root of the concerns is the push to cut the overall cost of health care overhaul legislation. Congress is trimming the budget
for subsidies to meet Obama’s target of $900 billion over 10 years – as the Baucus plan does. It means premiums will be higher
than under earlier Democratic proposals.
The trade-off directly affects people who buy their own coverage. For those with job-based insurance, employers
would continue to cover most of the costs.
Most of the uninsured are in households headed by someone who’s self-employed or works at a business
that doesn’t provide coverage. It’s this group that Democrats are trying to help.
Because health insurance is so expensive, lawmakers recognize that if they’re going to pass a law requiring all Americans to get coverage,
government has to defray the cost. The size of those subsidies makes an enormous difference.
Under the Baucus bill, a family of four making $63,000 would have to pay 11 percent of its income for health insurance,
according to Kaiser. By comparison, an earlier bill from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee with
more generous subsidies required the same hypothetical family to pay about 7 percent of its income for premiums – a difference of about $2,500.
“This is not the loaves and the fishes – you can’t just throw some subsidies out there and expect that will take care of everybody’s needs,”
said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University professor who studies the insurance market for people buying their own coverage.
The legislation provides the most generous subsidies to those at or near the poverty line, about $22,000 for a family of four.
That’s where the problem is concentrated because about three-fourths of the uninsured are in households making less than twice the poverty level.
But as income rises, the subsidies taper off.
For a family of four making $45,000, federal subsidies would pick up 71 percent of the premium under the Baucus plan, according to the Kaiser calculator.
For a family with an income of $63,000, the subsidies would only cover 36 percent of the premium.
A family making $90,000 would get no help.
Pollitz said the subsidies disappear rapidly for households with solid middle-class incomes. That could be tricky
for a self-employed individual who has a particularly good year financially.
Another problem is that people won’t be able to get the insurance tax credits immediately after the bill passes.
To hold down costs, the assistance won’t come until 2013, after the next presidential election.
White House officials say that while Obama wants the cost of the final bill to stay manageable, it has to provide affordable coverage.
“The president is absolutely committed to making this affordable. That’s the whole point,” said Linda Douglass,
spokeswoman for the White House health reform office.
Douglass said it’s premature to draw any conclusions while the bill is being shaped in Congress.
But House leaders are also cutting back their legislation to meet Obama’s target.
Acknowledging the affordability problem, Baucus’ committee voted Friday to exempt millions of people
from the requirement to buy insurance and reduce penalties for those who fail to do so. But that would mean
leaving at least 2 million more uninsured – not very satisfying to Democrats who started out with the goal of coverage for all.
“I think we’ve got to do something about it,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “We’ve got to make sure health insurance is affordable for the middle class.”
--------------------------
A massive redistribution of wealth, a massive new bureaucracy, with the potential for the
astronomical premiums of states that already require insurers to over look pre-existing conditions.
And, people whose states got into their mess now want to take us down to subsidize them.
The race to the bottom continues. Change? Nope, not the least bit...still going down.
Well maybe, we are picking up speed.
Well. I did say where Baucus and his "Bill" can go and rotate. I also said "we" (Liberals) want a LOW cost Public Option. But you might remember that "we" are for SINGLE PAYER Healthcare. Which would remove these premiums or reduce them to Medicare rates. If we went to Medicare for All and then morphed (over a period of say ten years) into Single Payer Universal Healthcare paid for by increased taxes primarily on the rich (remember Reagan and Bush's MASSIVE tax cuts for the rich?), you and I wouldn't have to pay premiums for primary care and our taxes would not go up much.
But then we Liberals are... "crazy" right?
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Oct 12 2009, 10:01 AM)
Well. I did say where Baucus and his "Bill" can go and rotate. I also said "we" (Liberals) want a LOW cost Public Option. But you might remember that "we" are for SINGLE PAYER Healthcare. Which would remove these premiums or reduce them to Medicare rates. If we went to Medicare for All and then morphed (over a period of say ten years) into Single Payer Universal Healthcare paid for by increased taxes primarily on the rich (remember Reagan and Bush's MASSIVE tax cuts for the rich?), you and I wouldn't have to pay premiums for primary care and our taxes would not go up much.
But then we Liberals are... "crazy" right?
But then we Liberals are... "crazy" right?
No, actually you are more honest and to the point than some of the homoginized plans.
While I differ on support of single-payer...I do understand it better. I just don't trust gummint insurance.
I would think a system of charity hospitals would provide more care than a jumble of laws, requirements,
penalties, taxes and appointed boards determining which procedures are allowable. States in cooperation
with the federal government's exisiting health care entitlements should support charity hospitals, IMO.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Oct 12 2009, 12:48 PM)
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Oct 12 2009, 10:01 AM)
Well. I did say where Baucus and his "Bill" can go and rotate. I also said "we" (Liberals) want a LOW cost Public Option. But you might remember that "we" are for SINGLE PAYER Healthcare. Which would remove these premiums or reduce them to Medicare rates. If we went to Medicare for All and then morphed (over a period of say ten years) into Single Payer Universal Healthcare paid for by increased taxes primarily on the rich (remember Reagan and Bush's MASSIVE tax cuts for the rich?), you and I wouldn't have to pay premiums for primary care and our taxes would not go up much.
But then we Liberals are... "crazy" right?
But then we Liberals are... "crazy" right?
No, actually you are more honest and to the point than some of the homoginized plans.
While I differ on support of single-payer...I do understand it better. I just don't trust gummint insurance.
I would think a system of charity hospitals would provide more care than a jumble of laws, requirements,
penalties, taxes and appointed boards determining which procedures are allowable. States in cooperation
with the federal government's exisiting health care entitlements should support charity hospitals, IMO.
IH, I think you put your finger on a very important distinction that is not given sufficient open and honest consideration.
What are the relative merrits of a system of Entitlements and a system of Charity?
QUOTE(rla @ Oct 12 2009, 03:53 PM)
IH, I think you put your finger on a very important distinction that is not given sufficient open and honest consideration.
What are the relative merrits of a system of Entitlements and a system of Charity?
What are the relative merrits of a system of Entitlements and a system of Charity?
Charity expands services in that internships and foreign doctors can work toward residency and
provide very close to equal services for less money. There is more waiting at charity hospitals
(we have a regional one in our parish) which can be as much as three to five hours. Private
hospitals usually get you into triage (without major howling) in an hour or so. But treatments
and facility safety (infections during or after stays) are very close to equal. In fact, "Big Charity"
in New Orleans (closed by Katrina, with negotiations almost complete to restore) had the best
reputation of trama (vehicle accidents and gun shots) treatment in The South.
In fact, no state has an equal system...it is considered the best such system in the US...I just talked
with a friend who recently reffered a woman who couldn't afford an MRI to the Bogalusa Medical Center
(a charity system branch - in a majority black city BTW) which took just what her insurance would pay...
which was hundreds less than the actually quoted price at a private hospital.
The way our charity system works is that anyone on food stamps, welfare, medicare, medicaid of CHIP gets
treatment for whatever can be recovered from said program(s) while people with insurance
or without that are above welfare recipient income pay. During recent years budget cuts have endangered
our regional charity hospital (actually named Lallie Kemp Regional Medical Center), but all residents and
thus our representatives have fought off closures and even maintained the cardiac unit, which is a very good unit.
Such treatment localizes support under the state (whith support of federal programs) and thus
maintains support from all sections, local employees, suppliers, maintenance staff etc.
--------------
On the Baucus Bill:
It appears to me that the Senate Finance Committee Bill is by far the best to have come out of
committee (I fully expect it to pass today) in the Congress to date. I say that after reading the
CBO letter of review which is posted at:
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10642/10-7-Baucus_letter.pdf
I offer the following highlights:
(In Introduction)
CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in
large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.
...
(In the body of the letter)
The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save
$404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same
period.1
...
On a preliminary basis, CBO and JCT estimate that the proposal’s specifications affecting health insurance coverage would result in a net
increase in federal deficits of $518 billion over fiscal years 2010 through 2019. That estimate primarily reflects $345 billion in additional federal outlays for Medicaid and CHIP and $461 billion in federal subsidies that would be provided to purchase coverage through the new insurance exchanges and related spending.2 The other main element of the coverage provisions that would increase federal deficits is the tax credit for small employers who offer health insurance, which is estimated to reduce revenues by $23 billion over 10 years.
Those costs would be partly offset by receipts or savings, totaling $311 billion over the 10-year budget window, from four sources: net revenues from the excise tax on highpremium insurance plans, totaling $201 billion; penalty payments by uninsured individuals, which would amount to $4 billion; penalty payments by employers whose workers received subsidies via the exchanges, which would total $23 billion; and other budgetary effects, mostly on tax revenues, associated with the expansion of federally subsidized insurance, which would reduce deficits by $83 billion.
...
Reducing Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals that serve a large number of low-income patients, known as disproportionate share (DSH) hospitals, by almost $45 billion—composed of roughly $22 billion each from Medicaid and Medicare DSH payments.
The proposal also would establish a Medicare Commission, which would be required, under certain circumstances, to recommend changes to the Medicare program to limit the rate of growth in that program’s spending. Those recommendations would go into effect automatically unless blocked by subsequent legislative action.
...
The proposal would place a number of limitations on the actions available to the commission, including a prohibition against modifying eligibility or benefits, so its recommendations probably would focus on:
Reductions in subsidies for non-Medicare benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans;
Reductions in subsidies of premiums charged by Part D plans; and
Changes to payment rates or methodologies for services furnished in the fee-for-service sector by providers other than hospitals, physicians, hospices, and suppliers of durable medical equipment
that is offered through competitive bidding.
...
An amendment adopted by the committee would require that, beginning in 2012, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) certify annually whether or not the provisions of the legislation are projected to increase the budget deficit in the coming year. If the Director determined that they were projected to increase the deficit, he or she would be required to notify the Congress, and exchange subsidies would be automatically adjusted to avoid the estimated increase in the deficit for that year.
The estimates presented in this preliminary analysis do not incorporate the potential effects of using this proposed failsafe mechanism, although CBO
and JCT estimate that the amended mark would increase the deficit in fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Many of the budgetary effects of this proposal
would appear as part of larger aggregates in the budget and would not be readily observable. Consequently, its overall budgetary impact could not be identified, and OMB’s estimating assumptions and procedures would determine whether and how this failsafe procedure was implemented. It is therefore difficult to predict whether the proposed failsafe mechanism would result in a budget-neutral impact in each year. If the mechanism was implemented to reduce exchange subsidy rates in some years, it would probably result in significant reductions to the dollar volume of such subsidies and associated reductions in coverage. Under CBO and JCT’s estimates of the deficit impact for the proposal, the failsafe provisions would require a reduction in exchange subsidies averaging about 15 percent during the years 2015 through 2018.
Important Caveats Regarding This Preliminary Analysis
There are a number of key reasons why the preliminary analysis that is provided in this letter and the enclosures does not constitute a final cost
estimate for the proposal:
The Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been converted into legislative language. The review of such language could lead to significant changes in the estimates of the proposal’s effects on the
federal budget and insurance coverage.
The budgetary information shown in the above and enclosed tables reflects many of the major cash flows that would affect the federal budget as a result of implementing the specified policies and
provides a preliminary assessment of the net effects on the federal budget deficit. However, some cash flows (such as risk adjustment payments) would appear in the budget but would net to zero and thus would not affect the deficit; CBO and JCT have not yet estimated all of those cash flows. Furthermore, CBO and JCT have not yet divided all of the estimated cash flows into spending and revenue
components.
Federal spending that would be funded by future appropriations is not reflected in these estimates. For example, implementation costs for operations of the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services are not included. Those discretionary costs could total several billion dollars over the 10-year period, but CBO has not yet completed an estimate of the appropriations that would be necessary. (In contrast, administrative costs for establishing and operating the exchanges, largely funded through a premium surcharge, are included in Table 1.)
...
All told, the proposal would reduce the federal deficit by $12 billion in 2019, CBO and JCT estimate. After that, the added revenues and cost
savings are projected to grow more rapidly than the cost of the coverage expansion. Consequently, CBO expects that the proposal, if enacted, would
reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.
The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates.
(There are an additional 14 pages of charts in support of the CBO letter.)
---------------------------
So, there are still problems (not the least of which is exact legislative language), but it doesn't scare me,
as the public option does. I will not request a vote against it by Senator Mary Landrieu's office.
Now, if Democrats can support Baucus...we will be farther down the road...if not...then Blue Dog bets are off, IMO.
The "Plan" should be renamed:
The Insurance Support Act of 2009
It is what it is.
Medicare for all (HR 676) would work. So would an idea to let people over 50 "buy in" to Medicare at an established rate to compete with Insurance Cos. Otherwise, there will NEVER be a reduction in premiums - only increases - and increases in PROFITS, which is what they are all about anyway.
The Insurance Support Act of 2009
It is what it is.
Medicare for all (HR 676) would work. So would an idea to let people over 50 "buy in" to Medicare at an established rate to compete with Insurance Cos. Otherwise, there will NEVER be a reduction in premiums - only increases - and increases in PROFITS, which is what they are all about anyway.
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Oct 13 2009, 09:50 AM)
The "Plan" should be renamed:
The Insurance Support Act of 2009
It is what it is.
Medicare for all (HR 676) would work. So would an idea to let people over 50 "buy in" to Medicare at an established rate to compete with Insurance Cos. Otherwise, there will NEVER be a reduction in premiums - only increases - and increases in PROFITS, which is what they are all about anyway.
The Insurance Support Act of 2009
It is what it is.
Medicare for all (HR 676) would work. So would an idea to let people over 50 "buy in" to Medicare at an established rate to compete with Insurance Cos. Otherwise, there will NEVER be a reduction in premiums - only increases - and increases in PROFITS, which is what they are all about anyway.
I agree...
Interesting...any figures?
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Oct 13 2009, 11:34 AM)
Interesting...any figures?
No, but Medicare operates with about a 3 % overhead, and they pay docs and hospitals less than Insurance Cos so we KNOW that this would be cheaper for all of us, less profitable for docs and hospitals, and FATAL for insurance cos because they HAVE TO MAKE A PROFIT.
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Oct 13 2009, 06:37 PM)
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Oct 13 2009, 11:34 AM)
Interesting...any figures?
No, but Medicare operates with about a 3 % overhead, and they pay docs and hospitals less than Insurance Cos so we KNOW that this would be cheaper for all of us, less profitable for docs and hospitals, and FATAL for insurance cos because they HAVE TO MAKE A PROFIT.
Yeah, but if you are selecting businesses to wipe out because they make a profit...it's a very slippery slope!
Then there is the don't screw us, screw them factor:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...RhnZNAD9BB29GO0
THE INFLUENCE GAME:
Health cry is tax them, not us
By CHARLES BABINGTON (AP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON — Insurance companies, unions and other special interest groups pushed back hard Wednesday
against health care legislation that could cost their members billions of dollars.
If they succeed in shifting the proposed taxes away from them, then Congress and the Obama administration
will have all the more difficulty paying for the roughly $900 billion, 10-year plan.
A full-page newspaper ad by labor unions, and an insurance industry TV ad aimed at elderly Americans,
are the latest efforts by major groups to transfer burdens to someone else — anyone else.
The lobbying and jockeying worry some lawmakers, who say a closely watched Senate bill that advanced
Tuesday is a delicate balance of opposing forces. The Senate Finance Committee endorsed it, 14-9, making
it the first health care bill to draw a Republican vote in either house this year.
But new barriers lie ahead.
About 30 unions are running a full-page ad in Washington newspapers opposing the measure's plan
to tax generous employer-provided health plans. The ad calls the Senate bill "deeply flawed."
Such efforts may already be bearing fruit. Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters Wednesday
that the bill probably will be changed to tax fewer high-cost health plans. "Of course, that will cost money,"
Durbin said, adding that he did not know where it would come from.
Meanwhile, America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's trade group, is running a TV ad in six states criticizing
the bill's call for more than $100 billion in cuts in Medicare Advantage, under which private insurance companies
provide Medicare benefits. The ad says 10 million senior citizens would be asked "for more than their fair share" if the bill passes.
It is airing in Louisiana, Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada and Pennsylvania, all which have high proportions
of people on Medicare Advantage plans and moderate Democratic senators whose votes will be crucial.
The Finance Committee bill will be blended with a rival Senate version, and then face many amendment
attempts by liberal, moderate and conservative senators. A final Senate bill will have to be reconciled
with a House health bill that is likely to differ in many ways.
President Barack Obama will play a huge role in the process. He dispatched several top aides, including
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, to the Capitol on Wednesday to huddle with Democratic leaders
shaping the legislative packages.
Obama has vowed not to sign a bill that will add to the long-term deficit. That means lawmakers must hold
the plan's 10-year cost to about $900 billion, while finding enough savings and revenue sources to cover
that amount. Key industries are scrambling to avoid being a target.
"They need to raise $900 billion, and no one wants to fork over the money," said Michael F. Jacobson,
executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which wants Congress to raise money
by taxing sugary soft drinks. The soft drink industry opposes the idea in TV and newspaper ads.
The prevailing attitude everywhere, Jacobson said, is "don't tax us, tax them."
Indeed, when 14 Democratic senators recently wrote to party leaders, they said the health proposals
must be fully paid for. However, they wrote, they are "extremely concerned" about a proposed $39 billion,
10-year tax on medical devices in the Senate Finance bill.
The tax "could threaten jobs in our states," the senators said, and reduce access "to lifesaving
medical devices for patients."
The nation's largest insurers and their major trade group have spent more than $20 million lobbying
Congress this year. That doesn't include the more than $130 million spent by drug manufacturers and
other medical products makers or the nearly $40 million spent by health professionals, according to
the Center for Responsive Politics.
Insurers want to delete or reduce the Senate Finance bill's proposed $6.1 billion-a-year "fee,"
to be apportioned among insurers according to their market share. Supporters say the fee, or "windfall profits tax,"
is justified because the legislation would bring the industry millions of new customers.
But Alissa Fox, a top lobbyist for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said there would be
no windfall profits because some of the new customers would incur extensive medical costs.
She said lawmakers also need to increase the proposed penalties for eligible people who decline to buy
health insurance. Otherwise, she said, too many will opt out and then buy insurance only when they become seriously ill.
Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
said his union will press Senate leaders to advance a bill that offers optional, publicly run insurance coverage
and drops the proposed tax on high-cost insurance policies.
"Let's charge the millionaires," McEntee said, "instead of people making $40,000, $50,000 a year."
In other words, don't tax us, tax them.
----------------------------
There is a very old saying in Louisiaiana:
"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree."
We've been playing these games a very long time...
and it is the reason there is not national health care today...it ain't easy...
especially when we are gauranteeing hundreds of billions in toxic assets
the big banks won't even admit to...and a deficit sky-rocketing...and a debt
next year in excess of 100% of GDP...sausage making at it's toughest.
Oh that wonderful sausage factory!
POLITICAL BULLETIN
All the Day's Political News From Newspapers, TV, Radio, and Magazines
MEMORANDUM FOR "Indianhead"
SUBJECT: TODAY'S POLITICAL NEWS
DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2009 - 8:00 AM
INSIDE
Washington News
Senate Healthcare Negotiators Could Adopt Snowe's Public Option "Trigger" Fox News'
Special Report reported, "Known in some quarters as 'the closer,' White House Chief of Staff
Rahm Emanuel got right down to business with key Senate Democrats, fellow White House aides
and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in the opening round of talks aged
aimed at merging the Senate's two competing versions of health care reform into one bill."
A Democratic Senate aide "told Fox News the negotiators will likely adopt the compromise proposed
by Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine under which a trigger would be set for the government-run
insurance plan to kick in on a slightly delayed basis." On its front page, the New York Times notes that
"two senior administration officials" said "the White House looked favorably on the Snowe plan.
But liberal Democrats were maneuvering against it Wednesday, arguing that Ms. Snowe, the lone Republican
to vote in favor of the Finance Committee's bill, was gaining undue influence over the talks."
The AP meanwhile, reports in the face of "formidable political opposition" from business groups
and conservatives, "advocates are getting creative, trying to reformulate the 'public option' in a way
that can gain the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate." The Christian Science Monitor reports that
"under the plan by" Sen. Tom Carper and Sen. Chuck Schumer, states would be given "the ability
to opt in or out of a national plan."
Reporting on yesterday's talks, the New York Times notes that in addition to Emanuel, the White House
team "included the budget director, Peter R. Orszag; the health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius;
and the health care policy coordinator, Nancy-Ann DeParle."
On CNN's The Situation Room, Snowe said Congress will "have to reconcile" the "differences"
among the healthcare bills, and the goal "here in the Senate, is to achieve more than 60 votes.
I hope we can get broader support than just 60, frankly." Snowe added that the public option was
"not something that I could support" because it "creates a disproportionate advantage for the government sector."
The Washington Times reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "is in the middle of a tug of war
between moderate and liberal Democrats hoping to modify the health care reform bill he plans to send
to the Senate floor later this month," and Roll Call says that "Democrats are jockeying to have their priorities
included in the legislation and looking to the players in the room -- some of whom have their own concerns
-- to protect their interests."
The Los Angeles Times reports that "the jockeying...is creating a less stable political environment.
Many lawmakers are stepping up their demands for changes in the healthcare legislation and questioning
agreements with drug companies, hospitals and other industries that have helped sustain the overhaul campaign all year."
Senate Democrats Split Medicare Payment Measure From Overhaul Bill
CQ Today reports Senate Democratic leaders "have made at least one decision about how they will blend
two health care overhaul bills into a single measure for floor debate, and it concerns what won't be included:
a short-term increase in Medicare payments to physicians." Instead, the Senate plans to "begin debate
on a stand-alone physician payment measure next week."
The independent Senate bill, the AP reports, "would avert a 21 percent reduction in Medicare fees
paid to doctors that is scheduled to take effect in January as well as additional cuts in future years."
The bill "could cost more than $200 billion over 10 years – without cuts or revenue to offset the spending,"
according to the Hill.
Unions Criticize Elements Of Senate Finance Committee Healthcare Bill
USA Today reports a "coalition of labor unions is emerging as a leading critic of an $829 billion health care bill heading
toward a Senate vote, complicating debate among Democrats over how to pay for the measure."
Unions had "largely supported President Obama's effort to revamp the nation's $2.6 trillion health
care system, but 27 labor groups have launched a campaign against key provisions in the bill passed
this week by the Senate Finance Committee." Unions want Majority Leader Harry Reid to "include a
government-run insurance program in the merged bill and remove a tax on high-priced insurance policies."
In the Los Angeles Times, Gerald McEntee head of the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), explained "why the labor groups defied a request from White House Chief
of Staff Rahm Emanuel not to run the ad," saying, "Our union and other unions worked like hell to elect
Democrats to the House, Senate and White House."
Democrats Consider Repealing Insurer Antitrust Exemptions
The AP reports that after insurance companies "unveiled ads critical of Democratic health care bills"
on Wednesday, Democratic lawmakers began "calling for revoking the industry's antitrust exemption."
The "frustrated" lawmakers, include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who "told the Judiciary
Committee on Wednesday that the health insurance industry wants to continue the monopoly that it enjoys in some states."
Politico likewise noted that "Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Wednesday called for an amendment
to the health care reform bill that would remove the long-standing antitrust exemption for insurers, echoing
a push by other Democrats to crack down on the industry." Meanwhile, "top Democrats in the House also
floated the idea during a meeting among party leaders Tuesday evening in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Capitol suite."
According to the Washington Post, "the insurance lobby dismissed their threat as 'a political ploy.'"
CNN's The Situation Room reported that if Congress "were to repeal this law, which is called the McCarran-Ferguson Act
...it would be a devastating blow to the health insurance industry, cut into their profits, definitely something that this
powerful industry would not want to see." This is "a show of force. This is real brass-knuckles politics being played
as this important issue comes closer and closer to a vote."
CNN's The Situation Room then interviewed Sen. Schumer. Schumer said the bill was "certainly the right thing
to do. The insurance industry and health care is one of the most highly concentrated industries. The Justice Department
says 94 percent of the markets are highly concentrated. So if you don't have competition, you're not going to bring the price down."
-----------------------
Grind that pork, stuff that intestine. Yeeeehaaaaa!
POLITICAL BULLETIN
All the Day's Political News From Newspapers, TV, Radio, and Magazines
MEMORANDUM FOR "Indianhead"
SUBJECT: TODAY'S POLITICAL NEWS
DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2009 - 8:00 AM
INSIDE
Washington News
Senate Healthcare Negotiators Could Adopt Snowe's Public Option "Trigger" Fox News'
Special Report reported, "Known in some quarters as 'the closer,' White House Chief of Staff
Rahm Emanuel got right down to business with key Senate Democrats, fellow White House aides
and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in the opening round of talks aged
aimed at merging the Senate's two competing versions of health care reform into one bill."
A Democratic Senate aide "told Fox News the negotiators will likely adopt the compromise proposed
by Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine under which a trigger would be set for the government-run
insurance plan to kick in on a slightly delayed basis." On its front page, the New York Times notes that
"two senior administration officials" said "the White House looked favorably on the Snowe plan.
But liberal Democrats were maneuvering against it Wednesday, arguing that Ms. Snowe, the lone Republican
to vote in favor of the Finance Committee's bill, was gaining undue influence over the talks."
The AP meanwhile, reports in the face of "formidable political opposition" from business groups
and conservatives, "advocates are getting creative, trying to reformulate the 'public option' in a way
that can gain the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate." The Christian Science Monitor reports that
"under the plan by" Sen. Tom Carper and Sen. Chuck Schumer, states would be given "the ability
to opt in or out of a national plan."
Reporting on yesterday's talks, the New York Times notes that in addition to Emanuel, the White House
team "included the budget director, Peter R. Orszag; the health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius;
and the health care policy coordinator, Nancy-Ann DeParle."
On CNN's The Situation Room, Snowe said Congress will "have to reconcile" the "differences"
among the healthcare bills, and the goal "here in the Senate, is to achieve more than 60 votes.
I hope we can get broader support than just 60, frankly." Snowe added that the public option was
"not something that I could support" because it "creates a disproportionate advantage for the government sector."
The Washington Times reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "is in the middle of a tug of war
between moderate and liberal Democrats hoping to modify the health care reform bill he plans to send
to the Senate floor later this month," and Roll Call says that "Democrats are jockeying to have their priorities
included in the legislation and looking to the players in the room -- some of whom have their own concerns
-- to protect their interests."
The Los Angeles Times reports that "the jockeying...is creating a less stable political environment.
Many lawmakers are stepping up their demands for changes in the healthcare legislation and questioning
agreements with drug companies, hospitals and other industries that have helped sustain the overhaul campaign all year."
Senate Democrats Split Medicare Payment Measure From Overhaul Bill
CQ Today reports Senate Democratic leaders "have made at least one decision about how they will blend
two health care overhaul bills into a single measure for floor debate, and it concerns what won't be included:
a short-term increase in Medicare payments to physicians." Instead, the Senate plans to "begin debate
on a stand-alone physician payment measure next week."
The independent Senate bill, the AP reports, "would avert a 21 percent reduction in Medicare fees
paid to doctors that is scheduled to take effect in January as well as additional cuts in future years."
The bill "could cost more than $200 billion over 10 years – without cuts or revenue to offset the spending,"
according to the Hill.
Unions Criticize Elements Of Senate Finance Committee Healthcare Bill
USA Today reports a "coalition of labor unions is emerging as a leading critic of an $829 billion health care bill heading
toward a Senate vote, complicating debate among Democrats over how to pay for the measure."
Unions had "largely supported President Obama's effort to revamp the nation's $2.6 trillion health
care system, but 27 labor groups have launched a campaign against key provisions in the bill passed
this week by the Senate Finance Committee." Unions want Majority Leader Harry Reid to "include a
government-run insurance program in the merged bill and remove a tax on high-priced insurance policies."
In the Los Angeles Times, Gerald McEntee head of the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), explained "why the labor groups defied a request from White House Chief
of Staff Rahm Emanuel not to run the ad," saying, "Our union and other unions worked like hell to elect
Democrats to the House, Senate and White House."
Democrats Consider Repealing Insurer Antitrust Exemptions
The AP reports that after insurance companies "unveiled ads critical of Democratic health care bills"
on Wednesday, Democratic lawmakers began "calling for revoking the industry's antitrust exemption."
The "frustrated" lawmakers, include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who "told the Judiciary
Committee on Wednesday that the health insurance industry wants to continue the monopoly that it enjoys in some states."
Politico likewise noted that "Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Wednesday called for an amendment
to the health care reform bill that would remove the long-standing antitrust exemption for insurers, echoing
a push by other Democrats to crack down on the industry." Meanwhile, "top Democrats in the House also
floated the idea during a meeting among party leaders Tuesday evening in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Capitol suite."
According to the Washington Post, "the insurance lobby dismissed their threat as 'a political ploy.'"
CNN's The Situation Room reported that if Congress "were to repeal this law, which is called the McCarran-Ferguson Act
...it would be a devastating blow to the health insurance industry, cut into their profits, definitely something that this
powerful industry would not want to see." This is "a show of force. This is real brass-knuckles politics being played
as this important issue comes closer and closer to a vote."
CNN's The Situation Room then interviewed Sen. Schumer. Schumer said the bill was "certainly the right thing
to do. The insurance industry and health care is one of the most highly concentrated industries. The Justice Department
says 94 percent of the markets are highly concentrated. So if you don't have competition, you're not going to bring the price down."
-----------------------
Grind that pork, stuff that intestine. Yeeeehaaaaa!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...care_98752.html
October 16, 2009
Laws of the Universe vs. Obamacare
By Rich Lowry
The intractable truth is that getting millions of new people health insurance is not costless.
New insurance regulations intended to benefit the sick and uninsured will increase premiums for everyone else.
Supporters of the Baucus plan implicitly respond, "Well, yes, that's why the bill has subsidies." But the subsidies
are tightly limited to keep from exploding the deficit.
If the subsidies go up, the new taxes will have to go up. And those are already causing a revolt on the Left.
In a revelatory moment, the unions argue that a tax on insurance companies offering high-priced "Cadillac"
insurance plans will be passed along to consumers and hit the middle class. In this, they embrace a long-standing
conservative argument that corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do. Perhaps for the first time ever,
the head of the AFL-CIO thinks Milton Friedman has a point.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 87 percent of the tax would fall on Americans making less than $200,000 a year.
Other Baucus taxes on drug companies and device-makers will be similarly passed along. The No. 2 Democrat in the Senate,
Dick Durbin, says the insurance tax will have to be reduced. He told the AP that will cost money,
"adding that he did not know where it would come from." That could be Obamacare's motto.
This is the choice: Either premiums for middle-class people go up with limited compensating subsidies, or generous subsidies
are funded with even more hidden middle-class taxes, or - most likely - some noxious combination of both.
...
They are like the movers who can't fit the couch through the door frame and keep backing it up and trying it a different way.
It's not going to fit. For that, blame the laws of the universe.
---------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, no transparancy on the closed-door Democrats-only merging of the health care bills...what happen to the C-Span promise?
Did he lie? Decide to dump the promise? Or was he just too naive in making it in the first place? I don't know which would be worse.
October 16, 2009
Laws of the Universe vs. Obamacare
By Rich Lowry
The intractable truth is that getting millions of new people health insurance is not costless.
New insurance regulations intended to benefit the sick and uninsured will increase premiums for everyone else.
Supporters of the Baucus plan implicitly respond, "Well, yes, that's why the bill has subsidies." But the subsidies
are tightly limited to keep from exploding the deficit.
If the subsidies go up, the new taxes will have to go up. And those are already causing a revolt on the Left.
In a revelatory moment, the unions argue that a tax on insurance companies offering high-priced "Cadillac"
insurance plans will be passed along to consumers and hit the middle class. In this, they embrace a long-standing
conservative argument that corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do. Perhaps for the first time ever,
the head of the AFL-CIO thinks Milton Friedman has a point.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 87 percent of the tax would fall on Americans making less than $200,000 a year.
Other Baucus taxes on drug companies and device-makers will be similarly passed along. The No. 2 Democrat in the Senate,
Dick Durbin, says the insurance tax will have to be reduced. He told the AP that will cost money,
"adding that he did not know where it would come from." That could be Obamacare's motto.
This is the choice: Either premiums for middle-class people go up with limited compensating subsidies, or generous subsidies
are funded with even more hidden middle-class taxes, or - most likely - some noxious combination of both.
...
They are like the movers who can't fit the couch through the door frame and keep backing it up and trying it a different way.
It's not going to fit. For that, blame the laws of the universe.
---------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, no transparancy on the closed-door Democrats-only merging of the health care bills...what happen to the C-Span promise?
Did he lie? Decide to dump the promise? Or was he just too naive in making it in the first place? I don't know which would be worse.
A Roadmap to Health-Care Overhaul by Christmas: Albert R. Hunt
Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Over the next couple of months, a sausage factory will seem tidier
than the U.S. Congress. The disposition of the huge health-care overhaul will be a messy dance of legislation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aaOLa0DjZkFY
Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Over the next couple of months, a sausage factory will seem tidier
than the U.S. Congress. The disposition of the huge health-care overhaul will be a messy dance of legislation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aaOLa0DjZkFY
Making matters worse
By Vincent Carroll
Denver Post
Repeat after me: Health care reform is going to save us money. Health care reform is going to save us money.
Pay no attention, please, to the fact that the Senate Finance Committee's bill imposes fees on insurance providers,
as well as producers of drugs and medical devices, that it caps deductions for flexible spending accounts and slaps
a 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans. Oh, yes: and that it raises the bar for itemizing medical
expenses on your taxes.
...
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_13603658#
By Vincent Carroll
Denver Post
Repeat after me: Health care reform is going to save us money. Health care reform is going to save us money.
Pay no attention, please, to the fact that the Senate Finance Committee's bill imposes fees on insurance providers,
as well as producers of drugs and medical devices, that it caps deductions for flexible spending accounts and slaps
a 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans. Oh, yes: and that it raises the bar for itemizing medical
expenses on your taxes.
...
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_13603658#
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Aug 14 2009, 04:21 AM)
"Novello says she's been humbled - Disgraced former state health commissioner says community service work has changed her"
By PAUL GRONDAHL, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published in print: Thursday, August 13, 2009
ALBANY -- Dr. Antonia Novello, the disgraced former state health commissioner, has seen how the other half lives and it has been a humbling, transforming experience working and living among the poor.
Under terms of her guilty plea to a low-level felony for forcing state employees to handle her personal chores while she was commissioner, Novello has nearly completed 250 hours of community service at a health clinic in West Hill, one of the poorest and highest-crime areas in the city.
"I was in Albany for seven years as health commissioner and I never knew West Hill existed," said Novello, 64, who grew up comfortably middle-class in Puerto Rico and is also the former U.S. Surgeon General.
"We have a two-tiered system of health care and the poor are losing out," said Novello.
By PAUL GRONDAHL, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published in print: Thursday, August 13, 2009
ALBANY -- Dr. Antonia Novello, the disgraced former state health commissioner, has seen how the other half lives and it has been a humbling, transforming experience working and living among the poor.
Under terms of her guilty plea to a low-level felony for forcing state employees to handle her personal chores while she was commissioner, Novello has nearly completed 250 hours of community service at a health clinic in West Hill, one of the poorest and highest-crime areas in the city.
"I was in Albany for seven years as health commissioner and I never knew West Hill existed," said Novello, 64, who grew up comfortably middle-class in Puerto Rico and is also the former U.S. Surgeon General.
"We have a two-tiered system of health care and the poor are losing out," said Novello.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Oct 25 2009, 06:02 AM)
"Feds probing Medicaid fraud at SUNY firm"
By BRENDAN J. LYONS, Senior writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published in print: Sunday, October 25, 2009
ALBANY -- A federal criminal investigation into systemic fraud related to audits of New York's Medicaid program is targeting numerous supervisors and employees at the state Health Department and the Research Foundation for the State University of New York.
Interviews with people familiar with the matter and documents obtained by the Times Union show that in recent weeks at least seven employees with those agencies received letters from federal prosecutors in Albany notifying them they are targets in the investigation.
The letters say evidence is being prepared for presentation to a federal grand jury for indictment in a case involving fraud, health care fraud, falsification of records and conspiracy.
At stake is more than $22 billion in annual matching federal funds for Medicaid.
The allegations are that Research Foundation workers, who were under contract with the state Health Department to audit the program, were pushed to manipulate data related to the percentage of ineligible people receiving benefits.
The Medicaid audits conducted by the Research Foundation on behalf of the state Health Department were intended to be randomized checks of the eligibility of New York recipients of Medicaid, which pumps billions of dollars a year into New York state -- money matched by state and county funds.
The allegations are that data was changed, altered or ignored to make it appear there was a lower percentage of ineligible Medicaid recipients so the state would not have to repay federal dollars from the program, records show.
By BRENDAN J. LYONS, Senior writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published in print: Sunday, October 25, 2009
ALBANY -- A federal criminal investigation into systemic fraud related to audits of New York's Medicaid program is targeting numerous supervisors and employees at the state Health Department and the Research Foundation for the State University of New York.
Interviews with people familiar with the matter and documents obtained by the Times Union show that in recent weeks at least seven employees with those agencies received letters from federal prosecutors in Albany notifying them they are targets in the investigation.
The letters say evidence is being prepared for presentation to a federal grand jury for indictment in a case involving fraud, health care fraud, falsification of records and conspiracy.
At stake is more than $22 billion in annual matching federal funds for Medicaid.
The allegations are that Research Foundation workers, who were under contract with the state Health Department to audit the program, were pushed to manipulate data related to the percentage of ineligible people receiving benefits.
The Medicaid audits conducted by the Research Foundation on behalf of the state Health Department were intended to be randomized checks of the eligibility of New York recipients of Medicaid, which pumps billions of dollars a year into New York state -- money matched by state and county funds.
The allegations are that data was changed, altered or ignored to make it appear there was a lower percentage of ineligible Medicaid recipients so the state would not have to repay federal dollars from the program, records show.
"Healthcare system wastes up to $800 billion a year"
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
26 OCTOBER 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. healthcare system is just as wasteful as President Barack Obama says it is, and proposed reforms could be paid for by fixing some of the most obvious inefficiencies, preventing mistakes and fighting fraud, according to a Thomson Reuters report released on Monday.
The U.S. healthcare system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year, the report from Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters, found.
"America's healthcare system is indeed hemorrhaging billions of dollars, and the opportunities to slow the fiscal bleeding are substantial," the report reads.
"The bad news is that an estimated $700 billion is wasted annually."
"That's one-third of the nation's healthcare bill," Kelley said in a statement.
"The good news is that by attacking waste we can reduce healthcare costs without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care."
One example -- a paper-based system that discourages sharing of medical records accounts for 6 percent of annual overspending.
"It is waste when caregivers duplicate tests because results recorded in a patient's record with one provider are not available to another or when medical staff provides inappropriate treatment because relevant history of previous treatment cannot be accessed," the report reads.
Some other findings in the report from Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters:
* Unnecessary care such as the overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure makes up 37 percent of healthcare waste or $200 to $300 billion a year.
* Fraud makes up 22 percent of healthcare waste, or up to $200 billion a year in fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services and other scams.
* Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork account for 18 percent of healthcare waste.
* Medical mistakes account for $50 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year, or 11 percent of the total.
* Preventable conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes cost $30 billion to $50 billion a year.
"The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada," reads the report, citing dozens of other research papers.
"American physicians spend nearly eight hours per week on paperwork and employ 1.66 clerical workers per doctor, far more than in Canada," it says, quoting a 2003 New England Journal of Medicine paper by Harvard University researcher Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.
Yet primary care doctors are lacking, forcing wasteful use of emergency rooms, for instance, the report reads.
All this could help explain why Americans spend more per capita and the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other OECD country, yet has an unhealthier population with more diabetes, obesity and heart disease and higher rates of neonatal deaths than other developed nations.
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said on Sunday that Senate Democratic leaders are close to securing enough votes to pass legislation to start reform of the country's $2.5 trillion healthcare system.
If the Obama Administration does in fact get serious about elliminating corruption and incompetence from
the government and her contractors, the human social system will be saved from implodding...
the government and her contractors, the human social system will be saved from implodding...
Obama will tackle fraud and corruption in the government right after he moves the moon more south in its orbit so as to shine more light on Washington, D.C. when it's a full moon ....
And so ...
And so ...
(from Washington Post on-line)
News Alert
10:35 AM EDT Thursday, October 29, 2009
House Democrats unveil health-care reform legislation
Bill includes a government insurance option and a historic expansion of Medicaid,
although sticking points in the legislation involving abortion and immigration remain unresolved.
That baby won't fly...
News Alert
10:35 AM EDT Thursday, October 29, 2009
House Democrats unveil health-care reform legislation
Bill includes a government insurance option and a historic expansion of Medicaid,
although sticking points in the legislation involving abortion and immigration remain unresolved.
That baby won't fly...
I finally had a credible source explain why The Senate needs 60 votes to pass Health-Care Reform
(ObamaCare):
Charles Konigsberg [budgetreport@concordcoalition.org]
If Reid is unable to construct a compromise bill that can garner 60 votes, Democrats may still have to resort to a filibuster-proof budget reconciliation bill that requires only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate. The downside of Reconciliation is that the bill could include only provisions that have a federal budget impact, which means that many of the insurance sector reforms (such as prohibitions on pre-existing condition restrictions, and annual and lifetime benefit limits) would have to drop out of the bill.
(ObamaCare):
Charles Konigsberg [budgetreport@concordcoalition.org]
If Reid is unable to construct a compromise bill that can garner 60 votes, Democrats may still have to resort to a filibuster-proof budget reconciliation bill that requires only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate. The downside of Reconciliation is that the bill could include only provisions that have a federal budget impact, which means that many of the insurance sector reforms (such as prohibitions on pre-existing condition restrictions, and annual and lifetime benefit limits) would have to drop out of the bill.
Today's The Day. Or tonight's the night. I'll be watching LSU-Alabama.
Illegal aliens and abortion? It's the Democrat Doomsday.
If you win you lose...I never liked a fight like that.
The Party wins The Darwin Award.
Illegal aliens and abortion? It's the Democrat Doomsday.
If you win you lose...I never liked a fight like that.
The Party wins The Darwin Award.
make all people here citizens, now
shortsighted not too
all the tax money those hard working kind gentle people (and they work, they don't whine, they come here and do hard labor for pennies
make them citizens and then the tax dollars alone would pay the deficit
shortsighted not too
all the tax money those hard working kind gentle people (and they work, they don't whine, they come here and do hard labor for pennies
make them citizens and then the tax dollars alone would pay the deficit
G4A - you are truly the heart of the Democratic Majority. Congratulations.
"GOP leaps on study of rising health care costs - Republicans jump on report from Medicare agency that says Democratic bill would boost spending"
By DAVID ESPO, Associated Press
Last updated: 9:45 p.m., Saturday, November 14, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Overall spending on health care would rise as a result of legislation approved a week ago by the House, and billions of dollars in projected savings contained in the measure will be difficult to maintain, according to a report by a top official at the agency that oversees Medicare.
The legislation would expand insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million people who now lack it, according to the report, creating a demand for services that "could be difficult to meet initially ... and could lead to price-increases, cost-shifting and/or changes in providers' willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage."
The analysis was issued by Richard Foster, the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, which is part of the Health and Human Services Department.
The study was conducted at the request of House Republicans, who quickly tried to turn it against the Obama administration.
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House GOP leader, issued a statement saying the study "confirms that this bill violates President Obama's promise to 'bend the cost curve.'"
"It's now beyond dispute that their bill will raise costs."
But Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the report "shows that our health reform bill will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by five years, significantly longer than any proposal in recent years."
The same report "estimates that our bill will cover 10 percent more of the population with less than a 1.3 percent increase in national health expenditures that illustrates a bending of the cost curve," he added.
Obama and congressional Democrats have said one of their goals with the legislation is to slow the growth of health care costs nationally.
With one exception, Republicans voted against the legislation when it cleared the House, and the GOP now is girding for a fight in the Senate, where debate on health care is expected to begin within days.
In the party's weekly radio and Internet address, Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois accused House Democrats of missing opportunities to improve the legislation when they rejected Republican proposals to limit lawsuits and give states more flexibility to enact innovative changes.
Kirk, who is running for the Senate in next year's elections, said health care costs could be lowered by "reining in lawsuits" and allowing consumers to buy coverage from across state lines.
The report issued by Foster estimated that as a result of the legislation total health expenditures would be an estimated $289 billion higher in the coming decade than would otherwise be the case.
Separately, the report cast doubt on the claims of House Democrats that the bill is fully paid for.
It said because of reductions in planned Medicare payments, acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health care agencies "could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for some beneficiaries)."
Any attempt to remedy that problem "would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than estimated, the report said.
Congressional budget experts say the House-passed bill would cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years and expand coverage to an additional 36 million people.
The Republican plan Kirk touted is estimated to push down premiums for privately insured people but would reduce the number of uninsured by just 3 million, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
The legislation that passed would raise $460 billion over the next decade from a surcharge on incomes over $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples.
There are also more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and a new $20 billion fee on medical device makers.
The GOP bill had no new taxes, and unlike the House-passed measure, would permit insurance companies to continue denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
------
On the Net:
GOP address: http://www.youtube.com/RepublicanConference
By DAVID ESPO, Associated Press
Last updated: 9:45 p.m., Saturday, November 14, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Overall spending on health care would rise as a result of legislation approved a week ago by the House, and billions of dollars in projected savings contained in the measure will be difficult to maintain, according to a report by a top official at the agency that oversees Medicare.
The legislation would expand insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million people who now lack it, according to the report, creating a demand for services that "could be difficult to meet initially ... and could lead to price-increases, cost-shifting and/or changes in providers' willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage."
The analysis was issued by Richard Foster, the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, which is part of the Health and Human Services Department.
The study was conducted at the request of House Republicans, who quickly tried to turn it against the Obama administration.
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House GOP leader, issued a statement saying the study "confirms that this bill violates President Obama's promise to 'bend the cost curve.'"
"It's now beyond dispute that their bill will raise costs."
But Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the report "shows that our health reform bill will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by five years, significantly longer than any proposal in recent years."
The same report "estimates that our bill will cover 10 percent more of the population with less than a 1.3 percent increase in national health expenditures that illustrates a bending of the cost curve," he added.
Obama and congressional Democrats have said one of their goals with the legislation is to slow the growth of health care costs nationally.
With one exception, Republicans voted against the legislation when it cleared the House, and the GOP now is girding for a fight in the Senate, where debate on health care is expected to begin within days.
In the party's weekly radio and Internet address, Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois accused House Democrats of missing opportunities to improve the legislation when they rejected Republican proposals to limit lawsuits and give states more flexibility to enact innovative changes.
Kirk, who is running for the Senate in next year's elections, said health care costs could be lowered by "reining in lawsuits" and allowing consumers to buy coverage from across state lines.
The report issued by Foster estimated that as a result of the legislation total health expenditures would be an estimated $289 billion higher in the coming decade than would otherwise be the case.
Separately, the report cast doubt on the claims of House Democrats that the bill is fully paid for.
It said because of reductions in planned Medicare payments, acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health care agencies "could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for some beneficiaries)."
Any attempt to remedy that problem "would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than estimated, the report said.
Congressional budget experts say the House-passed bill would cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years and expand coverage to an additional 36 million people.
The Republican plan Kirk touted is estimated to push down premiums for privately insured people but would reduce the number of uninsured by just 3 million, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
The legislation that passed would raise $460 billion over the next decade from a surcharge on incomes over $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples.
There are also more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and a new $20 billion fee on medical device makers.
The GOP bill had no new taxes, and unlike the House-passed measure, would permit insurance companies to continue denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
------
On the Net:
GOP address: http://www.youtube.com/RepublicanConference
Heck...we can't even feed our people (which is the foundation of "wellness"), much less doctor them:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...isrc=newsletter
Report: More Americans going hungry
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 16, 2009; 12:04 PM
The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million, the largest number since the government has been keeping track, according to a government report released Monday that shows particularly steep increases in food scarcity among families with children.
In 2008, the report found, nearly 17 million children -- more than one in five across the United States -- were living in households in which food at times ran short, up from slightly more than 12 million children the year before. And the number of children who sometimes were outright hungry rose from nearly 700,000 to almost 1.1 million.
Among people of of all ages, nearly 15 percent last year did not consistently have adequate food, compared with about 11 percent in 2007, the greatest deterioration in access to food during a single year in the history of the report.
...
...and this past week disaster areas were declared for The East Coast...and some areas of The South...because of Ida.
Plus, SS and Medicare and Medicaid are going broke...but let's don't fund FEMA or the current entitlements for seniors,
kids and impoverished...let's make another NEW $1 Trillion Entitlement! If this makes sense to you...you are clueless,
or a politician getting support from AARP, the AMA, or Unions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...isrc=newsletter
Report: More Americans going hungry
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 16, 2009; 12:04 PM
The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million, the largest number since the government has been keeping track, according to a government report released Monday that shows particularly steep increases in food scarcity among families with children.
In 2008, the report found, nearly 17 million children -- more than one in five across the United States -- were living in households in which food at times ran short, up from slightly more than 12 million children the year before. And the number of children who sometimes were outright hungry rose from nearly 700,000 to almost 1.1 million.
Among people of of all ages, nearly 15 percent last year did not consistently have adequate food, compared with about 11 percent in 2007, the greatest deterioration in access to food during a single year in the history of the report.
...
...and this past week disaster areas were declared for The East Coast...and some areas of The South...because of Ida.
Plus, SS and Medicare and Medicaid are going broke...but let's don't fund FEMA or the current entitlements for seniors,
kids and impoverished...let's make another NEW $1 Trillion Entitlement! If this makes sense to you...you are clueless,
or a politician getting support from AARP, the AMA, or Unions.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Nov 16 2009, 12:06 PM)
Heck...we can't even feed our people (which is the foundation of "wellness"), much less doctor them:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...isrc=newsletter
Report: More Americans going hungry
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 16, 2009; 12:04 PM
The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million, the largest number since the government has been keeping track, according to a government report released Monday that shows particularly steep increases in food scarcity among families with children.
In 2008, the report found, nearly 17 million children -- more than one in five across the United States -- were living in households in which food at times ran short, up from slightly more than 12 million children the year before. And the number of children who sometimes were outright hungry rose from nearly 700,000 to almost 1.1 million.
Among people of of all ages, nearly 15 percent last year did not consistently have adequate food, compared with about 11 percent in 2007, the greatest deterioration in access to food during a single year in the history of the report.
...
...and this past week disaster areas were declared for The East Coast...and some areas of The South...because of Ida.
Plus, SS and Medicare and Medicaid are going broke...but let's don't fund FEMA or the current entitlements for seniors,
kids and impoverished...let's make another NEW $1 Trillion Entitlement! If this makes sense to you...you are clueless,
or a politician getting support from AARP, the AMA, or Unions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...isrc=newsletter
Report: More Americans going hungry
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 16, 2009; 12:04 PM
The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million, the largest number since the government has been keeping track, according to a government report released Monday that shows particularly steep increases in food scarcity among families with children.
In 2008, the report found, nearly 17 million children -- more than one in five across the United States -- were living in households in which food at times ran short, up from slightly more than 12 million children the year before. And the number of children who sometimes were outright hungry rose from nearly 700,000 to almost 1.1 million.
Among people of of all ages, nearly 15 percent last year did not consistently have adequate food, compared with about 11 percent in 2007, the greatest deterioration in access to food during a single year in the history of the report.
...
...and this past week disaster areas were declared for The East Coast...and some areas of The South...because of Ida.
Plus, SS and Medicare and Medicaid are going broke...but let's don't fund FEMA or the current entitlements for seniors,
kids and impoverished...let's make another NEW $1 Trillion Entitlement! If this makes sense to you...you are clueless,
or a politician getting support from AARP, the AMA, or Unions.
I would like to see some of the funds presently going into war mongering diverted to this need...
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Nov 5 2009, 01:42 PM)
I finally had a credible source explain why The Senate needs 60 votes to pass Health-Care Reform
(ObamaCare):
Charles Konigsberg [budgetreport@concordcoalition.org]
If Reid is unable to construct a compromise bill that can garner 60 votes, Democrats may still have to resort to a filibuster-proof budget reconciliation bill that requires only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate. The downside of Reconciliation is that the bill could include only provisions that have a federal budget impact, which means that many of the insurance sector reforms (such as prohibitions on pre-existing condition restrictions, and annual and lifetime benefit limits) would have to drop out of the bill.
(ObamaCare):
Charles Konigsberg [budgetreport@concordcoalition.org]
If Reid is unable to construct a compromise bill that can garner 60 votes, Democrats may still have to resort to a filibuster-proof budget reconciliation bill that requires only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate. The downside of Reconciliation is that the bill could include only provisions that have a federal budget impact, which means that many of the insurance sector reforms (such as prohibitions on pre-existing condition restrictions, and annual and lifetime benefit limits) would have to drop out of the bill.
I heard that there was some deadline on October 15 that was not met that was required in order for the Dems to go the reconciliation route.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Nov 16 2009, 12:06 PM)
Heck...we can't even feed our people (which is the foundation of "wellness")
Well said, IH ....
Nor are we provided with the HEALTHFUL ENVIRONMENT that federal law dictates we get which is supposed to keep us healthy so we won't need extensive healthcare ....
And so ...
We need to fund emergency support - for storms, fires, floods.
We need to assure persons on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
And, if ya want to provide extended unemployment benefits...and
$1 Trillion entitlements...well, balance the books. I'm with ya if ya can.
And, if not, stop blowing smoke...it's B.S. of the highest order.
I'll feed a family for Thanksgiving...cause I owe it. Walk the walk.
We need to assure persons on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
And, if ya want to provide extended unemployment benefits...and
$1 Trillion entitlements...well, balance the books. I'm with ya if ya can.
And, if not, stop blowing smoke...it's B.S. of the highest order.
I'll feed a family for Thanksgiving...cause I owe it. Walk the walk.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Nov 16 2009, 11:00 PM)
We need to fund emergency support - for storms, fires, floods.
We need to assure persons on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
And, if ya want to provide extended unemployment benefits...and
$1 Trillion entitlements...well, balance the books. I'm with ya if ya can.
And, if not, stop blowing smoke...it's B.S. of the highest order.
I'll feed a family for Thanksgiving...cause I owe it. Walk the walk.
We need to assure persons on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
And, if ya want to provide extended unemployment benefits...and
$1 Trillion entitlements...well, balance the books. I'm with ya if ya can.
And, if not, stop blowing smoke...it's B.S. of the highest order.
I'll feed a family for Thanksgiving...cause I owe it. Walk the walk.
while you have free governmental hosptalization and cheapie insurance
you can afford to feed 1000 families and not break a sweat
you take what the gov't gives you, why don't you refuse it?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.