Category Archive:Obama Care

I made a post last year about how the push to put Narcan in the hands of all first responders was going to enable more overdoses.  I am not saying this is the only reason but it is one of the biggest reasons.  The economic circumstances for so many people has not changed…or in many cases has gotten worse.  This has been part of the reason the overdose problem is getting even worse.  Now as of June 1, 2017 anyone can get narcan without a doctor’s prescription.  This also does not include any medical training requirements, only a crash course in symptom recognition and how to administer this powerful drug.  So now this drug is now being carried around by not even first responders but regular civilians.  I can hear the , “what if you had overdosed.  Wouldn’t you want somebody to help?”  My answer?  Not unless you were an EMT or paramedic with proper medical training.

Keep in mind an opioid overdose is rarely spontaneous.  It is a choice to take more and more of the drug..unless you are addicted to the point where you can’t get away from it….”doing it for fun”.  I am not against drug addiction intervention treatment either.  HOwever this push for Narcan everywhere only enables folks to continue to make poor choices.  As with most “feel good” response plans this has disastrous second order effects.  For those who are truly addicted…I am all for this lifesaving substance…as long as it is followed up with appropriate intervention by appropriate medical professionals.  Narcan everywhere however is only going to enable the further explosion of overdosing by those who wish to not be responsible for their own actions.

I think Narcan should be only administered with either an actual prescription or by properly medically trained first responders.  This gives the best balance between getting the drug to those who really need it vs to those who do it because they no longer have to fear the results of poor choices.  I am a big proponent of personal responsibility.  If you make a poor conscious choice…you should suffer the consequences of that choice.  So if an ambulance cannot get to you in time..even if you were hooked by a “friend” or some other reason…i am sorry..too bad.  Yes this means folks are going to die…it also means that those who choose this poor choice of action will suffer the consequences of said poor choices.

I’ll give you a personal example.  I am a type 2 diabetic because of years of poor eating habits and lack of physical activity due to my chosen field of expertise.  I do not expect “diabetic drugs everywhere” like narcan folks are asking for as I am now dealing with my poor choices and having to change my lifestyle.  Obamacare took my insurance away from me so I am out of meds and the physical alone is $700.  The medication is not very expensive.  I am not moaning here about my poor choice…I am living with the consequences of it.  Why do I not have insurance?  I make too much for subsidies(which do nothing to offset the monthly cost) and the costs of coverage right now would cost me more than 1k/month.  That’s more than my mortgage of $755/month.  I literally cannot afford two mortgage payments.  What does that 1k/month get me?  I have a deductible of 10k first of all.  This means i have to spend 10k in medical expenses out of pocket before bronze kick in..which is 60%.  That insurance does not cover the following:

  1.  any out of pocket expense the physician charges.
  2. no coverage for balance billing(which many providers charge)
  3. no coverage for any other fees, co pay, other medical charges, equipment charges that are charged.

Only after 10k in deductibles does the 60% coverage kick in.  All in all I am looking at 21k per year before I get ANY coverage.  That’s more than 45% of my GROSS income(mind you Social Security is considered taxable gross income and counts in these calculations).  As I am self-employed my taxes alone take a majority of the rest.  So I have two choices.  Shut down my business, work for somebody else who may or may not take my family dynamic into account, or reduce my income to a point that I can get all of the gov’t assistance(ebt, medicaid, food stamps.etc etc etc) and basically become a ward of the state.  I do not want to live like the latter and I do not want my kids learning to live like that either.  Right now any job I have been able to find would have any gains in income be immediately offset by the massive increase in daycare costs for my youngest that would be incurred by me taking a job.  One day a solution that is acceptable(either my business will grow to the point this is not an issue or i will be able to find a job with enough extra take home pay that daycare expenses will be manageable) will come up.  Until then I will soldier along with help from friends and family…but most importantly from Jesus Christ himself.

For those who are overdosing because you do not have to suffer the consequences for your poor choices…shame on you.  The folks in this society who live with their choices have zero sympathy for you.  For the ones who have a truly devastating medical condition?  I truly hope you get the help you need before it’s too late.  Right now resources for you are being taken by those who wish to abscond from their personal responsibility.

I talked about this a while back.  I had warned that obama is going to come after retirement accounts.  I warned about this back in 2012.  We can trust obama and/or the gov’t right?  Socialized medical care was supposed to save us money right?  How did you like the premium increases?  Nice savings.  As long as obamacare is law it does not matter who the president is the gov’t will continue this push.  We need to not only change the president but both congressional houses as well.  That has gotten more difficult with the gov’t sanctioned invasion that is happening right now.  What’s worse is the fact the many american citizens ACCEPT this as the norm.  Many of these “immigrants” are from countries with despotic or socialist backgrounds so they will be happy to vote for the gov’t they had regardless of what that means for the true citizens of this country.  So get ready for folks to move out of private retirement accounts to government ones because of these new regulations.  Of course those will be properly run right?  Sure thing.

The flu vaccine isn’t safe at all.  Just by the EPA standards for mercury the current crop of vaccines have more than what the EPA says is safe by quite a bit.  hit the link for the full details.  there is no mercury free vaccine.  Also read the inserts..most vaccines say they haven’t been tested for safety or efficacy(working).

 

From the Archives… Debunking Flu Shot Myths with Megan Pond – Episode 140 – Off The Grid News.

this so called ‘fiscal cliff” is merely a smokescreen for the Obamacare taxes that start kicking in from now until 2014.

 

Even if lawmakers somehow stop the Bush-era tax rates from expiring, taxes are still expected to rise on Jan. 1 — thanks to a trio of new fees tied to the federal health care overhaul.

The IRS this past week published rules for some of the first major taxes meant to help pay for President Obama’s massive insurance coverage expansion. Together, they will raise investment and income taxes on top earners and impose a separate — and controversial — tax on medical devices.

The bundle of fees has been largely overlooked as lawmakers and the White House bicker over the Bush tax rates, with Republicans demanding they be extended for everyone and Obama insisting rates rise for top earners. But that same group of earners is already in the crosshairs under the ObamaCare tax rules published this week.

Starting Jan. 1, investment income for individuals earning over $200,000 and households earning over $250,000 will be subject to a new 3.8 percent tax. Further, regular income above those thresholds will be hit with a .9 percent Medicare surtax. Should the Bush tax rates expire for those workers, those increases will be compounded.

But the rather obscure medical device tax is the one that has stirred the most controversy in Washington and the business community. This week, groups and lawmakers renewed their calls to repeal it as the IRS published its final rules.

“This week, the Internal Revenue Service outlined which medical supplies and technologies will be subject to a tax. Now, everything from latex gloves to pacemakers will become more expensive and in some cases, more scarce,” Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said in a statement. “The tax on medical devices harms America’s ability to conduct the necessary research and development to maintain our global competitiveness, resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and fewer groundbreaking innovations in this field. With millions of Americans unemployed, this simply makes no sense.”

The Affordable Care Act imposed the 2.3 percent tax on medical devices with the goal of raising nearly $30 billion over the next decade.

Equipment makers, though, argue that the tax ends up being much higher than that since it’s on gross sales. One industry spokesman estimated earlier this year that the impact on actual earnings is more like 15 percent.

Already, some have warned that the tax will stifle growth. Indiana-based Cook Medical earlier this year announced it was scrapping plans to open five new plants because of the tax.

via Deal or no deal, ObamaCare taxes poised to hit next month | Fox News.

Several restaurants, hotels and retailers have started or are preparing to limit schedules of hourly workers to below 30 hours a week. That is the threshold at which large employers in 2014 would have to offer workers a minimum level of insurance or pay a penalty starting at $2,000 for each worker.

The shift is one of the first significant steps by employers to avoid requirements under the health-care law, and whether the trend continues hinges on Tuesday’s election results. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has pledged to overturn the Affordable Care Act, although he would face obstacles doing so.

Let’s not mince words — that’s a 25% reduction in the impacted worker’s gross wages!

It’s already started with some “pilot projects” among certain employers, and this will spread.  Bank on it.  The results will be catastrophic for people in this income class, as on top of having gasoline double in price over the last four years along with other forms of energy rising precipitously along with food and health care now you’re going to see a 25% reduction in their working hours, meaning that their income is going to come down by that same 25%!

Both Darden (corporate parent of Red Lobster and Olive Garden) and some Subway franchises have been testing these changes already.  When the first “real” bite comes from Obamacare in as of January 1st 2014, expect all the lower-wage service industries to do exactly this.

via Obamacare Is About To Whack Personal Income in [Market-Ticker].

Howl lovely.  First it was backbilling..now this mess.  Guess what..it is going to get worse with Obamacare/romneycare.

The next time you visit your primary care physician for a physical, you may want to consider inquiring as to whether or not you will be billed extra for asking too many questions during your checkup. This is what happened recently to Susan Krantz of Minnetonka, Minnesota, who was reportedly charged an additional $50 on her medical bill for simply inquiring about a sore hip.

It is called a “split charge,” and it is increasingly creeping up in the medical billing process for patients who converse with their doctors about specific ailments outside the general physical regimen. Time spent with doctors discussing “acute care” matters are apparently billed differently than time spent for a “wellness” visit — in essence, doctors are now sometimes charging for two office visits when patients discuss other matters.

“Even as a registered nurse, I can’t figure out what this is,” said Krantz to WCCO News in Minnesota about the charge, recalling when she first noticed it on the bill. “You can be charged an extra office visit if you ask too many questions. I don’t understand that, because isn’t that what [the] visit is for?”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037784_medical_fees_patients_asking_questions.html#ixzz2BD7EODiq

Doctors now hitting patients with extra fees if they ask too many questions.

This is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO True..in every single word.

 

Obamacare Summed Up in One Sentence – YouTube.

Read the entire article.  It’s breathtaking.

 

Sunday will mark the start of the 100-day countdown to “Taxmageddon” – the date the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect.  They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2013:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for small business owners, families, and investors (later re-upped by President Obama and Democrat Congress in 2010).  The following tax hikes will occur on January 1, 2013:

Personal income tax rates will rise on January 1, 2013.  The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which the majority of small business profits are taxed).  The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.  All the rates in between will also rise.  Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.  The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

-The 10% bracket rises to a new and expanded 15%

-The 25% bracket rises to 28%

-The 28% bracket rises to 31%

-The 33% bracket rises to 36%

-The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family coming on January 1, 2013.  The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of taxable income.  The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.  The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. 

Middle Class Death Tax returns on January 1, 2013.  The death tax is currently 35% with an exemption of $5 million ($10 million for married couples).  For those dying on or after January 1 2013, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.  A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors on January 1, 2013.  The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 23.8 percent in 2013.  The top dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 43.4 percent in 2013.  This is because of scheduled rate hikes plus Obamacare’s investment surtax.

via Americans for Tax Reform : 100 Days Until Taxmageddon.

Listen to this episode from Karl Denninger.  It very well explains what the government can now compel form the american nation.

 

The United States Of Korea 07/02 by TickerGuy | Blog Talk Radio.

Listen to internet radio with TickerGuy on Blog Talk Radio

Here Are The New Taxes You’re Going To Pay For Obamacare | Daily Ticker – Yahoo! Finance.

I am going to cross post this to both blogs as this affects me both as a person and a business man.

 

Now consider this — the PPACA sets forth a “fine” (tax) of $2,000 per employee for a business that has 50 or more and does not provide “at least” the minimum “insurance” to all.

There is no health care plan I’m aware of that a business can buy today that costs less than $2,000 per employee per year, and which also meets the requirements in the law.  None.  That was almost impossible to meet back in 1995 for a healthy, 18 year old insured single male.  It’s flatly impossible now and it’s doubly-so if your workforce has other than 18-year old single, healthy males in it.  I know this to be factual because I was responsible for buying it for our employees as a CEO of a company.

Therefore the incentive is for all businesses to drop health care. 

Period.

Second, your choice is to either (1) buy and have said plan (whether through employment or individually) or pay a “fine” (tax) of 1% of income (increasing to 2.5% of AGI in 2016.)  The minimum “fine” is $95 starting in 2013, rising to $695 in 2016.  The average family income is about $50,000/year, which means that the fine (tax) will be $1,250 in 2016.  It’s less now.

You cannot buy health insurance at their “minimum level” for anything approaching $1,250 a year no matter how healthy you are at any age. 

The law prohibits insurance companies from charging you more if you’re sick, or refusing to cover you at all.  They must accept everyone on equal terms.

Therefore:

Businesses will drop coverage; it’s cheaper (by far) for them to pay the fine and, for those under 133% of the federal poverty level, those employees can go onto Medicaid.  This is a “family of four” income of $31,900 (as of today; it will go up of course.)  That’s roughly the second quintile.

Individuals will drop coverage and pay the fine, since it’s far cheaper than to buy the “insurance.”

Both will buy the “insurance” only when they get sick, since they cannot be upcharged.

The cost of “insurance” will thus skyrocket to 10x or more what it costs now, just as it would if you bought auto insurance only after you wrecked or homeowners insurance only after you had a fire.

At the higher price nobody will be able to afford to buy the insurance at all, since that will be indistinguishable from just paying for whatever is wrong with you, plus the insurance company markup.

In very short order the entire medical system and health insurance scheme will collapse, leaving only two choices — either a return to free market principles (including all I’ve argued for since this debate began) or a single-payer, fully-socialized system ala Canada.

You can bet the government will continue to try to change the terms of the deal — including ramping up the tax/fine and other games, to prevent this outcome, but they will fail.

Now the question becomes this:

Which Presidential political candidates have told you the above, and what are their answers to this dilemma?

Let’s go down the list.

We know what Obama’s is — he passed it.  You will lose your private health care under Obama.  Period.  We are headed for a fully-socialized medical system and a collapse of the current medical paradigm under Obama.

We know what Gary Johnson’s position is — he wants to “block grant” all Medicare and Medicaid to the states, cut the amount of money in the budget (all line items) 43% and repeal Obamacare (including the mandate.)  But he refuses to demand an end to the cost-shifting where Juanita the illegal Mexican immigrant who is 7-1/2 months pregnant while drug and alcohol dependent shows up in the hospital, in labor, and foists off a $2.5 million NICU and birth expense bill on you!  He also refuses to stop the drug companies from effectively forcing Americans to bear the cost of all drug and device development and he has refused to put a stop to differential billing.  The latter two only exist because of explicit federal laws that make lawful in the health industry market behaviors that are illegal in virtually every other line of work (see The Sherman Act, The Clayton Act, and Robinson-Patman for starters.)  All of these facts are why the costs are ramping in the first place, which means his plan will simply force the States into bankruptcy and continue screwing you at the same time.

We don’t know what Romney’s plan is in detail.  He’s been oddly silent in that regard.  He says “Obamacare is not the answer” but he passed it as Governor on a state basis!  He too advocates nothing to put a stop to the cost-shifting and anti-competitive acts of drug and device makers nor hospitals and other medical providers.  He too wants to block grant Medicaid but that does nothing to address the problem and will simply bankrupt the state budgets (as noted for Johnson.)   Conspicuously absent from Romney’s plan (as is true for Johnson) is (1) a repeal of EMTALA, (2) a demand for level, consistent pricing irrespective of how one pays for a service (3) and a demand to remove anti-competitive laws protecting differential billing across state and national boundaries (e.g. Viagra for $2 in Canada .vs. $20 here) so that Americans are not forced to subsdize everyone else in the world and you pay the same price as the guy next to you in the hospital for the same product or service, instead of 2x, 3x, 5x, or even 100x as much.

So we have three Presidential candidates, none of which will do a damn thing to fix what’s wrong with health care.  All three are promoting a path that will bankrupt the States, bankrupt the Federal Government, bankrupt you or all three.

via PPACA And The Death Of Medical Care (And Choice) in [Market-Ticker].

The first, and best known, of these seven taxes that will hit all Americans as a result of Obamacare is the Individual Mandate Tax (no longer concealed as a penalty). This provision will require a couple to pay the higher of a base tax of $1,360 per year, or 2.5% of adjusted growth income starting with lower base tax and rising to this level by 2016.  Individuals will see a base tax of $695 and families a base tax of $2,085 per year by 2016.

Next up is the Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011.  This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA).  This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.

The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class.  This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts.  Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class?  It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States.  Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.

Another direct hit to the middle class is the Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income.  This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes.  Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013.  Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses.  Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000).  An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

The fifth new tax on the middle class, and all Americans, is the Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike.  This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013.  This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

Another regressive tax that is part of this law began in 2010 and that is the Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons.  While some may regard this as insignificant, the broader implication is that this act of taxation is a blatant move by the federal government to control the behavior of citizens.  This provision, as does the Individual Mandate and as Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law said, “….fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the citizen.”

The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax.  These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers.  This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018.  The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.

via Obamacare: Seven New Taxes on Citizens Earning Less than $250,000.

Somebody you know you can count on…not only to stand beside you when things are good but to stand beside you when either you screw up or when you are under attack through no fault of your own. I can count the number of friends i have on one hand. Friends are based on trust and frankly the number of people i inherently trust are few…with the recent attacks perpetrated against me and my family nobody gets a one step pass anymore.

Keep in mind folks…the gov’t isn’t here to help you anymore. they are looking to take control of every facet of your life. When Hitler took over want to know one of the first things he did? He nationalized healthcare. Once they can dictate how to keep you healthy they can dictate anything. Guess what we have now? Obamacare…guess who brought the blueprint into action? Romney. Anyone who thinks Romney is going to get rid of Obamacare or stop this country towards heading to a socialized government isn’t in their right mind or doesn’t have the self-thinking abilities needed to keep this country free.

Then there are some “fun” provisions.

One of them is a $250,000 statutory limit on non-economic damages in health-related lawsuits.  This one came out of left field — I had no idea it was being proposed.  Actual economic damages remain uncapped but things like pain and suffering.

I have a strenuous objection to this law in that it codifies actual and constructive fraud upon juries — the act specifically provides:

The jury shall not be informed about the maximum award for noneconomic damages. An award for noneconomic damages in excess of $250,000 shall be reduced either before the entry of judgment, or by amendment of the judgment after entry of judgment, and such reduction shall be made before accounting for any other reduction in damages required by law. If separate awards are rendered for past and future noneconomic damages and the combined awards exceed $250,000, the future noneconomic damages shall be reduced first.

Isn’t that special?

In addition the law limits contingency fees collected by attorneys.  Are the limits reasonable?  You decide — they start at 40% for the first $50,000 (the part that counts for most smaller cases!) and drops to 15% over $600,000.  Isn’t that special — you can give up nearly half, but as the award grows (you really got reamed) and the case gets more complex and harder to prosecute the lawyers get less.  Just, unjust, you decide.

There are also substantive limits on punitive damages.  Actual malice or “substantial certainty” of knowledge of unnecessary injury is required.  That’s a tough standard — is it just?  You decide.

But what’s not arguable is that again there is a cap of two times the economic damages or $250,000, whichever is greater, and again the jury is barred from being informed of the limits.

So we’re actively concealing the truth from juries again.  The limits may be just but active concealment and fraud upon a jury is not.

In addition there’s another nasty sop to the pharmaceutical and device industry: Anything that conforms to FDA standards is exempt from punitive damage awards.  Isn’t that nice?  So if the FDA approved it and it was later shown to be intentionally defective, tough crap — you can’t sue for punitive damages.

It gets worse — a health provider who dispenses or provides an FDA approved product cannot be named in such a suit even if they have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous nature of the product.

There is only one exception: If the FDA itself was bribed or information was intentionally fabricated or withheld from the FDA’s processes.

This is a literal “screw the patient” license for dangerous procedures and drugs that the government is free to hand out at will!  If you can get it through government approval through anything short of felonious conduct then that’s tough crap for you as a patient.

via Market-Ticker – MarketTicker Forums.

See how the lie is set up?  The premise put forward — that everyone needs medical attention at some point, and virtually everyone needs insurance to pay for it, is put forward as a “fait accompli” without first asking the following questions:

  • Has it always been this way? Can you, for example, show us that health insurance was necessary in, oh, 1776?  1850?  1913?  1953?  1970?
  • Has everyone “needed” medical attention “at some point” historically as well?  Was that true in 1776?  1850?  1913?  1953?  Or 1970?

It’s a fact that virtually everyone has in fact “needed” medical attention “at some point” historically.  But America, and the rest of the world, managed to economically progress for hundreds of years without force-placed “insurance” or the government being materially involved in health care.

An honest inquiry is therefore forced to ask the following question: What happened?

That’s relatively simple: Government happened.

via The Mental Disease Called Liberalism (Health Reform) in [Market-Ticker].

Which means it will be closer to 3-4 trillion once it’s all said and done.  Anyone who bought the lie of Obamacare bringing lower costs…if you have insurance..have you seen your premiums lately?  We have.

 

CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner.

Rep. Dingell: “It Takes A Long Time.. To Control The People” in [Market-Ticker].

Lots of waivers for Obamacare.  If this plan is so great why the ever growing number of exceptions to this wonderful plan?

Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711 as of December 3, 2010 | HHS.gov.

Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare.

FOXNews.com – Do Kids Count? Insurers Stop Selling Child-Only Policies Ahead of ObamaCare Provisions.

Faced with mounting debt and looming costs from the new federal health-care law, many local governments are leaving the hospital business, shedding public facilities that can be the caregiver of last resort.

via FOXNews.com – Cash-Poor Local Governments Ditching Public Hospitals.

Kidan on facebook posted about this.  This is what is coming here..get ready.

Axe falls on NHS services – Telegraph.

Here we go.  It’s not on the “major” sites yet because the gov’t doesn’t want to scare everyone like they should be.  It’s the frog in the water on the stove.  They’ll let these little leaks to smaller outlets come first then the “big news” will hit and by then…it’s too late to stop it.  Time to wake up folks.

Health law risks turning away sick – TheHill.com.

THE HILL

Health law risks turning away sick

By Julian Pecquet – 07/01/10 07:13 PM ET

The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Critics of the $5 billion high-risk pool program insist it will run out of money before Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the program sunsets and health plans can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

Administration officials insist they can make changes to the program to ensure it lasts until 2014, and that it may not have to turn away sick people. Officials said the administration could also consider reducing benefits under the program, or redistributing funds between state pools. But they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility.

“There’s a certain amount of money authorized in the statute, and we will do our best to make sure that that amount of money insures as many people as possible and does as much good as possible,” said Jay Angoff, director of the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). “I think it’s premature to say [what happens] when it’s gone.”

The administration has not discussed asking Congress for more money down the line if the $5 billion runs out before Jan. 1, 2014. Uninsured sick people could start applying for participation in the high-risk insurance pools on Thursday.

Healthcare experts of all stripes warned during the healthcare debate that $5 billion would likely not last until 2014. Millions of Americans cannot find affordable healthcare because of their pre-existing conditions, and that amount would only cover a couple hundred thousand people, according to a recent study by the chief Medicare actuary.

Republicans continued to hammer that point on Thursday, asking HHS officials to brief them about the program.

We are “deeply concerned that these pools may not provide quality coverage or will limit enrollment,” Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas), John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Michael Burgess (R-Texas), the ranking members on the Energy and Commerce panel and its health and oversight subcommittees, wrote in a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The letter requests a briefing on high-risk pools by July 15, particularly on three topics: protections and services in place “to make sure that access is efficient and unimpeded; whether HHS believes the program is financially sustainable through 2013; and details about how each state’s pool will be administered and what options they’ll have available.”

Leading health reform advocate Ron Pollack, founding executive director of Families USA, said the pools were a “very imperfect tool that could be implemented quickly” but were the best option available for the interim period before 2014.

“The pools are going to be helpful for a significant number of people,” he told The Hill, “but nobody thought they’re the ultimate answer for helping people with pre-existing conditions.”

Still, he didn’t rule out that Families USA could press lawmakers to allocate more money in a few years if it looks like the program needs it.

Each state has a certain budget allocation for its pool, and the first step to stay under budget would be to shift money around between states that don’t see a lot of applicants and those that do, said Richard Popper, deputy director of the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at HHS.

“If we have that situation where we have strong demand in one state and not as strong demand in another state, the secretary of HHS after a year or two has the authority to reallocate the funding,” said Popper, who used to run Maryland’s high-risk pool.
“Along with that, we can work with the states to adjust their benefit structure, the deductibles, the co-pays, the overall plan structure to address some of those cost drivers, again to help the plan make it to 2014, when it will no longer be needed.”

In addition, Popper said, many people won’t be able to afford to participate in the program since premiums will range between about $140 and $900 a month, depending on applicants’ age and where they live. HHS estimates that at least 200,000 people will be in the program at any one time. To be eligible, applicants have to be citizens or nationals of the United States or be lawfully present; have a pre-existing medical condition; and have been uninsured for at least six months before applying for the high-risk pool plan.

“There are going to be meaningful premiums that are going to be required to stay in this plan — premiums in the hundreds of dollars every month,” Popper said. “There are a significant number of people out there with pre-existing conditions who are uninsured, but a significant number of those people … also have limited income. And some of them, while they may need this plan, the premiums may not be something they can afford.

“We have that to think about as well,” he added. “But for those who can afford it, this is going to be a great, great plan.”

If it looks like too many people are signing up — states will get monthly updates on how many people they can cover with the money they have left — there’s always the option of turning people down.

The bill “does give the secretary authority to limit enrollment in the plan … nationally or on a state-by-state basis,” Popper said. “So that is present, but at this point, we’re starting with no one in the plan as of today … so we don’t see that happening anytime soon.”

Source:
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/106887-health-law-risks-turning-away-sick

EducationNews.org – Six Months to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History….

The original site has been taken down either due to traffic or something else..but there are tons of copies.  Read up and get ready.  Fro those of you that voted obama..you got what you voted for..enjoy.

First Obamacare now this.  Rush has been saying all along once healthcare is controlled by the gov’t our entire lives can now be dictated.  Well Rush was once again correct.  It looks like the change of this country going to full blown communism may be on track..socialism is just the first stop.  Buckle up folks.  All these years of apathy and NOT doing your civic duty by voting for CONSTITUTIONAL political candidates has now come home to roost.

Claiming the “authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,” President Obama has truly gone off the deep end this time in his most atrocious attempt to date to control every aspect of Americans’ lives.

According to Sec. 5. of the Executive Order that details the President’s “National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy,” the Council will be charged with carrying out “lifestyle behavior modification” among American citizens that do not exhibit “healthy behavior.”

The President’s desired lifestyle behavior modifications focus on:

* smoking cessation;

* proper nutrition;

* appropriate exercise;

* mental health;

* behavioral health;

* sedentary behavior;

* substance-use disorder; and

* domestic violence screenings.

Making matters even worse, if that is even possible at this point, President Obama will create an “Advisory Group” composed of experts hand-picked from the public health field and various other areas of expertise “outside the Federal Government.”

via Obama Issues Executive Order Mandating “Lifestyle Behavior Modification” «.

Don’t just go for the Anti-incumbent my friend…vote for the one who is actually going to try to do something..and make sure it’s Constitutional to boot.  99% of the republicrats and demopublicans are NOT interested in the Constitution.  This is why I take a look at “alternative” parties.  Don’t continue to buy into the two party farce as there’s no real difference between the two.

krashpad: Am Sad.

For all of those that thought this was going to help healthcare.  Think again.

Restrictions on how insurers can spend money are compounded by simultaneous constraints on how they can manage their costs. Beginning in 2014, a new federal agency will standardize insurance benefits, placing minimum actuarial values on medical policies. There are also mandates forcing insurers to cover a lot of expensive primary-care services in full. At the same time, insurers are being blocked from raising premiums—for now by political jawboning, but the threat of legislative restrictions looms.

One of the few remaining ways to manage expenses is to reduce the actual cost of the products. In health care, this means pushing providers to accept lower fees and reduce their use of costly services like radiology or other diagnostic testing.

To implement this strategy, companies need to be able to exert more control over doctors. So insurers are trying to buy up medical clinics and doctor practices. Where they can’t own providers outright, they’ll maintain smaller “networks” of physicians that they will contract with so they can manage doctors more closely. That means even fewer choices for beneficiaries. Insurers hope that owning providers will enable health policies to offset the cost of the new regulations.

via Scott Gottlieb: No, You Can’t Keep Your Health Plan – WSJ.com.

No, You Can’t Keep Your Health Plan

Insurers and doctors are already consolidating their businesses in the wake of ObamaCare’s passage.


By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

President Obama guaranteed Americans that after health reform became law they could keep their insurance plans and their doctors. It’s clear that this promise cannot be kept. Insurers and physicians are already reshaping their businesses as a result of Mr. Obama’s plan.

The health-reform law caps how much insurers can spend on expenses and take for profits. Starting next year, health plans will have a regulated “floor” on their medical-loss ratios, which is the amount of revenue they spend on medical claims. Insurers can only spend 20% of their premiums on running their plans if they offer policies directly to consumers or to small employers. The spending cap is 15% for policies sold to large employers.

This regulation is going to have its biggest impact on insurance sold directly to consumers—what’s referred to as the “individual market.” These policies cost more to market. They also have higher medical costs, owing partly to selection by less healthy consumers.

Finally, individual policies have high start-up costs. If insurers cannot spend more of their revenue getting plans on track, fewer new policies will be offered.


This will hit Wellpoint, one of the biggest players in the individual market, particularly hard. The insurance company already has a strained relationship with the White House: Earlier this month Mr. Obama accused Wellpoint of systemically denying coverage to breast cancer patients, though the facts don’t bear that out.

Restrictions on how insurers can spend money are compounded by simultaneous constraints on how they can manage their costs. Beginning in 2014, a new federal agency will standardize insurance benefits, placing minimum actuarial values on medical policies. There are also mandates forcing insurers to cover a lot of expensive primary-care services in full. At the same time, insurers are being blocked from raising premiums—for now by political jawboning, but the threat of legislative restrictions looms.

One of the few remaining ways to manage expenses is to reduce the actual cost of the products. In health care, this means pushing providers to accept lower fees and reduce their use of costly services like radiology or other diagnostic testing.

To implement this strategy, companies need to be able to exert more control over doctors. So insurers are trying to buy up medical clinics and doctor practices. Where they can’t own providers outright, they’ll maintain smaller “networks” of physicians that they will contract with so they can manage doctors more closely. That means even fewer choices for beneficiaries. Insurers hope that owning providers will enable health policies to offset the cost of the new regulations.

Doctors, meanwhile, are selling their practices to local hospitals. In 2005, doctors owned more than two-thirds of all medical practices. By next year, more than 60% of physicians will be salaried employees. About a third of those will be working for hospitals, according to the American Medical Association. A review of the open job searches held by one of the country’s largest physician-recruiting firms shows that nearly 50% are for jobs in hospitals, up from about 25% five years ago.

Last month, a hospital I’m affiliated with outside of Manhattan sent a note to its physicians announcing a new subsidiary it’s forming to buy up local medical practices. Nearby physicians are lining up to sell—and not just primary-care doctors, but highly paid specialists like orthopedic surgeons and neurologists. Similar developments are unfolding nationwide.

Consolidated practices and salaried doctors will leave fewer options for patients and longer waiting times for routine appointments. Like the insurers, physicians are responding to the economic burdens of the president’s plan in one of the few ways they’re permitted to.

For physicians, the strains include higher operating costs. The Obama health plan puts expensive new mandates on doctors, such as a requirement to purchase IT systems and keep more records. Overhead costs already consume more than 60% of the revenue generated by an average medical practice, according to a 2007 survey by the Medical Group Management Association. At the same time, reimbursement under Medicare is falling. Some specialists, such as radiologists and cardiologists, will see their Medicare payments fall by more than 10% next year. Then there’s the fact that medical malpractice premiums have risen by 10%-20% annually for specialists like surgeons, particularly in states that haven’t passed liability reform.

The bottom line: Defensive business arrangements designed to blunt ObamaCare’s economic impacts will mean less patient choice.

Dr. Gottlieb, a former official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a practicing internist. He’s partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies.

Buried in the recently passed health-care reform bill is a new law granting one of the nation’s largest corporate lobbyists what it has been targeting for years: Death to its competition, and, consequently, a heavy blow to patient choice.

Section 6001 of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is responsible for Obamacare’s first casualties: a reported 60 physician-owned hospitals, which had promised to offer an innovative alternative to big, corporate and non-profit facilities, but under the new law are now “virtually destroyed,” according to advocates. Another 200-plus doctor-owned hospitals already in existence may soon be put out of business by the health-care reform law.

via Obamacare hospitals killed: 60, with 200 on life support.

Oh REALLY?!?!?!  How much of your paycheck are you willing to donate to this cause Max?  I know the answer..ZERO!  This is simply to suck money out of everyone and give it to folks like you.  It’s unfortunate that many folks in the country through their lack of self-thought and research will actually let this slide thinking you are kidding.  I and many others though know you are talking the absolute truth here…which is a rarity for you dweebs on the ill.

As Democrats tout the moral underpinnings of the federal health care system overhaul — ensuring health care coverage for nearly all Americans — one senator appeared to go off message when he said the legislation would address the “mal-distribution of income in America.”

After the Senate passed a “fix-it” bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an “income shift” to help the poor.

“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said. “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

via FOXNews.com – Democratic Senator: Health Care Law to Address ‘Mal-Distribution of Income’.

Full Article follows:

After the Senate passed a “fix-it” bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an “income shift” to help the poor.

As Democrats tout the moral underpinnings of the federal health care system overhaul — ensuring health care coverage for nearly all Americans — one senator appeared to go off message when he said the legislation would address the “mal-distribution of income in America.”

After the Senate passed a “fix-it” bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an “income shift” to help the poor.

“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said. “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

That contrasted with the arguments Democrats have been making in the past year for reinventing the health care system: to expand health care coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans and tighten regulations on  insurance companies while reducing the federal deficit.

But some Republican critics have suggested the overhaul is taking the country down the path to socialism. The nearly $1 trillion legislation pays for itself in large part through new taxes on the wealthy — Americans who make $250,000 and more.

A spokeswoman for Baucus did not respond to an e-mail seeking more information on the statement.

Baucus’ statement could give Republicans ammunition as they seek to repeal the law and regain control of Congress in the November elections.

Democrats have rejected Republican charges that they are trying to take over the health care system.

In Iowa this week to trumpet the benefits of the legislation, President Obama said, “We made a promise. That promise has been kept.”

“From this day forward, all of the cynics, all the naysayers — they’re going to have to confront the reality of what this reform is and what it isn’t,” the president said. “They’ll have to finally acknowledge this isn’t a government takeover of our health care system.”

GOP strategist Matt Schlapp, the White House director to former President George. W. Bush, told FoxNews.com that Baucus’ statement reflected the “duality” of a responsible Democrat who understands the ramifications of tax policy on Americans but has a “foot in the camp of the most radical and rabid big government activists that are advocating for some breathtaking policies.”

“It’s interesting,” he said. “He’s not the senator I would use as the poster boy for radical and misunderstanding of market dynamics.”

But Schlapp said he’s not surprised by anything said by a member of a political party that, he said, seeks “to take money away from people who are achieving and give it those who aren’t.”

Medicare gets eviscerated over the next decade.  While i don’t have the specifics yet I found this which goes into some detail about what’s going to happen.  All you seniors who are members of AARP who either directly voted for this OR indirectly voted by remaining in AARP here is your reward.  This goes for everyone else that voted these boobs into power.

Consequences Of Health Care: Valuations – The Market Ticker.

Read this linked article closely.  Where are the healthcare savings at?  There are none!

It gets worse.  The companies taking charges is growing exceedingly rapidly.

More articles on the already unfolding impacts:

1

2

3

krashpad: Am Sad.

Don’t just throw out the incumbent…make sure(as i hope everyone will) the person you vote is is worthy of your vote…if not vote for yourself as a write-in.

FOXNews.com – In Gamble, Obama and Dems Prepare to Ram Health Care Through.

So they are going ot use reconciliation(which means attach it to hte budget which means no debate) for an up or down vote.  since scott brown is a “moderate” I doubt he’s going to change the balance so this will go through.  Let’s see if hte dems survive this or not.  However voting for whomever the rebpubs put up is simply going to be voting for a less extreme dems in the vast majority of hte caes.  If you want to truly change things..voite for somebody who either truly represents your values or go thrid party because most of hte dempublicans and republicrats are not different form each other in the end.

– AP

– February 26, 2010

In Gamble, Obama and Dems Prepare to Ram Health Care Through

Obama strongly signaled at Thursday’s summit that Democrats will move forward on a health care overhaul with or without Republicans. At stake are Democrats’ political fortunes and the fate of Obama’s agenda.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama strongly signaled that Democrats will move forward on a health care overhaul with or without Republicans, preparing his party for a fight whose political outcome will rest with voters in November.

Delivering his closing argument at a 7-1/2-hour televised policy marathon Thursday, Obama told Republicans he welcomes their ideas — even ones Democrats don’t like — but they must fit into his framework for a broad health care remake that would cover tens of millions of uninsured Americans.

That’s the deal.

It’s a gamble for Obama and his party, and it’s far from certain that Democratic congressional leaders can rally their members to muscle a bill through on their own. At stake are Democrats’ political fortunes in the midterm elections and the fate of Obama’s domestic agenda pitted against emboldened Republicans.

“The truth of the matter is that politically speaking, there may not be any reason for Republicans to want to do anything,” Obama said, summing up. “I don’t need a poll to know that most Republican voters are opposed to this bill and might be opposed to the kind of compromise we could craft.

“And if we can’t,” he added, “I think we’ve got to go ahead and some make decisions, and then that’s what elections are for. ”

To the nearly 40 lawmakers in the room with him, the message was unmistakable.

“Frankly, I was discouraged by the outcome,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “I do not believe there will be any Republican support for this 2,700-page bill.”

Democratic leaders — who preside over majorities in both chambers– were having none of that.

“It’s time to do something, and we’re going to do it,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Still, no participant publicly called the daylong exercise a waste of time. Despite flare-ups now and then, they had a remarkably civil debate on an issue that has divided Americans and polarized political partisans.

Obama’s plan would require most Americans to get health insurance, while providing subsidies for many in the form of a new tax credit. It would set up a competitive insurance market for small businesses and people buying coverage on their own. Other changes include addressing a coverage gap in the Medicare prescription benefit and setting up a new long-term-care insurance program. The plan would be funded through Medicare cuts and tax increases.

At the summit, there were some areas of agreement, including barring insurers from dropping policyholders who become sick, ending annual and lifetime monetary limits on health insurance benefits and letting young adults stay on their parents’ health policies into their mid-20s or so.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has a track record of working across the political aisle, said he would try to broaden common ground. Obama said he was willing to incorporate medical malpractice changes into his plan.

Yet on the core issues of how to expand coverage and pay for it, the divide was as wide as ever. Democrats argue a stronger government role is essential, and with it higher taxes and new rules for private companies.

“We have a very difficult gap to bridge here,” said Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican. “We just can’t afford this. That’s the ultimate problem.”

A Democrats-only strategy is no slam-dunk. The House would have to pass a Senate bill that many House Democrats find unacceptable. Indeed, House Democrats appear to hold the key to the success of Obama’s gambit.

To make the Senate bill more palatable to the House, both chambers would pass a package of changes. In the Senate, that would be done under special budget rules allowing majority Democrats to get around the requirement for 60 votes to shut off bill-killing filibusters. Democrats are one vote shy.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., asked Democrats to swear off the tactic, known as “reconciliation.” Reid defended it.

Obama said Americans want a decision on health care, and most think “a majority vote makes sense.”

Yet a USA Today/Gallup survey released Thursday found Americans tilt 49-42 percent against Congress passing a health care bill similar to the ones proposed by Obama and Democrats in the House and Senate. Opposition was even stronger to the idea of Senate Democrats using the special budget rules, with 52 percent opposed and 39 percent in favor.

Congressional aides said top Democrats will take a few days to gauge the summit’s impact on the public and, perhaps more importantly, on moderate House members who will likely determine whether any health care bill will pass.

If the effort fails, Democrats may try a scaled-back plan to insure about 15 million more Americans, rather than the 30 million covered under the congressional bills. Among other things, the fallback plan would require insurance companies to let people up to age 26 stay on their parents’ health plans.

Greetings to all,

I just had to comment on this. To find the story, here is the link: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35018#c1

I think I know the direction that Mr Buchanan was heading for. The problem is, I never agreed with his whiny words and policies. Even now, people are still blaming “W” for their woes. You want to know the true reason why for our decline? The fact is, the US has been pointing fingers at others for over 30 years. JB tries to make this point, but it is lost after recital of rhetoric garbage. The way the US can get out of this is for all of us to ‘take ownership’, stop the blame game, and do what needs to be done.

But here is the crux: what is it that needs to be done. You will hear “we have so many problems..”, “the issues are numerous and vast..”, “there isn’t a simple solution or steps of solutions..”. Dont you believe them. In order to figure out what the problems are, we need to figure out who we, as a people and nation, are.

So, what is the United States of America? Now, you may be thinking “Gawd, not another history lesson..”. Well, too bad. The reason why schools push for 12 years of history is two fold: to rewrite history for selfish malicious use, and to get people sick of history to forget about it. It is like navigating a ship, driving a car, or even just walking from point A to point B: if you don’t know where you are at and how you got there, how can you plot where you are going to go?

Anyways, what were our American ancestors? Here is a link describing “American Colonists” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_colonists . While I will not recite the whole page, I would like to copy the first paragraph: The term colonial history of the United States refers to the history of the land from the start of European settlement to the time of independence from Europe, and especially to the history of the thirteen colonies of Britain which declared themselves independent in 1776.[1] Starting in the late 16th century, the English, Scottish, French, Swedes, Germans and the Dutch began to colonize eastern North America.[2][3] Many early attempts—notably the Lost Colony of Roanoke—ended in failure, but successful colonies were soon established. The colonists who came to the New World were from a variety of different social and religious groups who settled in different locations on the seaboard. The Dutch of New Netherland, the Swedes and Finns of New Sweden, the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Puritans of New England, the English settlers of Jamestown, and the “worthy poor” of Georgia, and others—each group came to the new continent for different reasons and created colonies with distinct social, religious, political and economic structures.[4]

Now, there is something very very wrong with this summary. Can you tell what it is? Is it incorrect? No. Are there any wrong references? No. The problem with this summary is that it is watered down. It does not have the heart and soul of what was done and accomplished. Let me explain.

Imagine yourself a colonist. You board a ship, overcrowded with people, a ship that is maybe 80 ft in length and you are lucky if 12ft in width. You travel from one continent to another, that is, over 3000 miles of water that at any point, you could drown. Sickness was always rampant. If you were a woman, you always had to worry about rape. You were lucky you would eat once a day. You finally come over to America. You have very little with you, because of no space on the ship, or, you were poor and had very little to begin with. You are on a land that you have no familiarity with. You are melded into a society of people you do not know about. You have very little to no money, and if you had money, you could buy very little. There were homes with no heat save a fireplace, no air conditioning, very few clothes you could wear. And why would anyone put themselves through this? Because, for the chance. The chance of being free, free of clergy persecution, free of corrupt government officials, free of unfair tax levies, free of social miscreants and fools, etc etc. The concept of freedom. The thought of freedom, but derived from pure sacrifice, devotion, belief, and faith.

Do you see the difference between the two summaries of American colonists? Which one has the heart? Which one excites the senses, the fears, the digust, the joy of hope? The first is definition through society’s acceptance of language. Mine, is a definition of the heart and soul. And, there is the basic problem/solution that we need in this country. Do you think the colonists pointed fingers at others for their problems? (well, in a way they did..hence why they were colonists..but other than that). Do you think they looked for handouts? Did they expect to be clothed, fed, sheltered, given money, health services, financial pensions, 3 cars in the driveway, cell phone for every family member, laptop and LCD plasma TV for each person, twittering their facebooks, worried about keeping up with the neighbors, going green while finance going red, etc etc? I know, I put in ‘modern everyday concerns’ with that of old. But I did this with purpose. Do you see what the average ‘joe’ now worries about vs even just 100 years ago? 100 years. That is simply 4 generations? Maybe 3?

Ok, enough of the history lesson. I did mention that the steps to turn things around are simple. And they truly are: that is, IF you keep what our founding fathers/mothers went through.

1: Only if you are a citizen, or going through the path of legal citizenship, STOP all entitlements. This means, no health care, no welfare, no government handouts of any type. These services have been paid for by citizens and soon to be citizens. We have over 12 million illegals in this country. If each one is given $10,000 of various handouts, that is $1.2 trillion dollars handed out.

2: Those that are citizens and on welfare, cut out the fat. How many times has each one of us saw some woman with 2 or 3 kids, in a grocery store, with more gold bling on her body, looking like she just came out of a salon, driving a nicer car than you own, pay for groceries with food stamps? It is said that 1 out of 12 adults are receiving food stamps. If only 1% of them are cheating, that is still over 83,000 adults. Average amount of food stamps is $250 a month. That is almost 21 million a month, nearly $250 million a year.

3: Hand the bill to the country for every illegal we transport back to them. It is estimated that it costs over $80,000 per illegal we catch and transport back to their country of origin. This, is a service. If we merely catch and transport 25,000 illegals, that is $2 billion a year. The actually number is much higher, closer to a million. But think about that. If 25,000 brings in invoices over 2 billion, then a million would be over $80 billion dollars. Let us just invoice Mexico alone at 25,000 illegals. You know they would enforce and beef up their own border patrols just to prevent this!

4: Invoice other nations. What do I mean? Invoice every other country that asked us for help on a military level since 1963. Every military base we have overseas, every military action we performed at the host country’s request, etc etc. Then, take these ‘bills’ to the UN and tell the UN to shove it up its arse, proving “we are doing the job you sworn to do”. Now, reality is, they won’t do a thing. But, show to others that we have been the ones shouldering the load with an ungrateful lot. But lets say payments do come through. Take every dime of those payments and pay to the veterans, current military personnel, and those survived by the military personnel that died performing their duty and love to this country.

5: Present each bill/law on the table of House, Senate, and Presidency that is no more than 50 pages in length AND it can only contain material directly related to the bill. Too much pork in each bill, too much bureaucracy. Take again, military pay increase. That should be its own bill. A good subtopic is increasing the payments of veterans who have severe medical disabilities. That, would be a valid sub topic. Trying to get a grant for a farm in San Francisco area for 33 million dollars to grow soybeans and peanuts have nothing to do with this bill. It should be its own seperate issue. To enforce this, allow the people in each house and senate district to do a ‘recall’ of the person they elected every 6 months if 25% of the citizens agreed it is within bounds for review. What do I mean? If a senator is going crazy, not listening to their constituents, and causing severe distress and embarassment to their representative community, then, hold a vote and a meeting to see if that person should be removed from office. This would force elected officials to be more honest and stop wasting our taxpayer monies for their salaries and their personal agendas.

6: Now, when it comes to voting, I personally feel that there should be a compentcy test passed. Not anything specific about the candidates or anything like that, but a test on basic government structure and process. So many people who are voting are ignorant of the jobs, dutites, and responsibilities for each branch of local, state, and federal government. So, an example of just 10 questions each about the local, state, and federal government, with a 70% success rate to pass would allow you to vote. People may say that this goes against the Bill of Rights. I say, the blatant stupidity among the public of not knowing their own government, party, and candidates that they are voting on is against my right as a US citizen. Example: The day of the presidential election 2008, a reporter asked 513 confirmed Obama voters simple questions that pertained to Obama, Biden, and top Congressional democrats. 12 questions were asked of each person (the same 12 questions). 0.5% got all 12 questions right. The other percentages of questions/answers were staggering. However, when asked about questions of McCain and Palin, and the questions asked had lies as answers, each one of these people answered those questions “correctly”. They were also asked about Sarah Palin seeing Russia from her backyard and I think 85% said that Palin did say that (it was actually Tina Fey in her famous SNL skit, Sarah Palin never ever said that). What this test showed, is that the general public, ignorant of their own electoral system, can be programmed of how to vote. This video does exist, a little bit of searching can find it. I went through the trouble and found the Zogby poll link for everyone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9htwW21K8s . Bill of Rights. I believe in it with all my heart. I just don’t believe in the people generally anymore. Not until this trend turns around.

I could go onward with other points, and I shall in another post. At the moment, this is enough for everyone to digest all this information properly. Until then, take care.

W/R

Hause.

Employers will not be required to offer their workers coverage, being subject to a $750 annual penalty if they fail to do so, a figure most analysts say is not high enough to prevent employers from dropping their plans, meaning that more people will be forced to buy government health care.

via Obamacare To Cost Middle Class Families $15,000 A Year.

&750/year fine for employers but 15k for the workers?  This is to kill private insurance.  Basically the entire population will be on the gov’t dole.

Health bill would leave millions uninsured – Washington Post- msnbc.com.

Health bill would leave millions uninsured

Backer of Senate legislation says ‘the problem is still going to be there’
By Perry Bacon Jr.
The Washington Post
updated 7:02 a.m. ET, Sat., Jan. 2, 2010

//

Even as Democrats seek the biggest expansion of health coverage in decades, as many as 23 million people could still be without insurance by 2018, illustrating the complexity of achieving the long-held Democratic goal of universal health care.

The legislation that the Senate passed Christmas Eve, which is expected to resemble closely the final bill that is hashed out between the House and Senate over the next month, would leave about 8 percent of the population under age 65 without health insurance, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It would extend insurance to 31 million of an estimated 54 million who would have no coverage without the legislation.

“The impact of the reform overall is that we can focus more on care and less on how we pay for the uninsured, but the problem is still going to be there,” said Chip Kahn, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a lobbying group that has endorsed the Democratic plan.

But those who would be left uninsured have drawn little attention. This is in part because their ranks would include many who choose not to get health insurance, even though they can afford it — such as some healthy people under 30, who have little effect on rising health-care costs because they rarely go to the doctor. Though starting in 2014, individuals would face fines if they do not buy coverage, some may still refuse.

Illegal immigrants
About a third of the uninsured would be illegal immigrants. Neither party supports expanding insurance to cover them, even though states spend millions caring for them at hospitals, where emergency rooms accept patients regardless of coverage.

Some Republicans have seized on the uninsured number to attack the health-care legislation, even though they oppose mandating the purchase of insurance and covering illegal immigrants. “After raising billions in new taxes, cutting about a half-trillion dollars from Medicare, and imposing stiff new penalties for people who don’t buy insurance and increasing costs for those that do, 23 million people will still not even have health insurance,” Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said before the Senate vote.

White House spokesman Reid Cherlin countered that “tens of millions of Americans will gain affordable coverage under this bill.”

Despite complaints about those left uninsured, some health-care experts defend the legislation, noting the difficulty of reaching 100 percent coverage.

“If you’re at 84 percent and you are going to 94 percent, you picked up roughly two-thirds of the problem, which is big,” said John Holahan, director of the Health Policy Center at the liberal Urban Institute, referring to the percentage of legal U.S. residents who will have health insurance under the Senate plan. “If the economy comes back, you can pick up a good chunk of the rest. Most European countries don’t get 100 percent — the data I’ve seen is always 98 or 99 percent.”

The CBO has not released a breakdown of who would make up the 23 million. Along with illegal immigrants and people who choose not to buy coverage, there are two groups of people likely to be uninsured: those who are eligible for Medicaid but don’t sign up for it, and those who would qualify for an exemption from the coverage mandate because paying for insurance would take up more than 8 percent of their income.

Penalties
The CBO estimates that the House version of the legislation would expand insurance to 36 million people, reducing the ranks of the uninsured to about 18 million. It would offer slightly higher subsidies for low-income people, reducing the number who cannot afford insurance, and it has stronger penalties for companies that do not offer insurance to workers and individuals who do not purchase it. But the House legislation would cost more than $1 trillion, compared with the $871 billion Senate package.

Latino activists and some Democratic lawmakers have complained about a provision in the Senate bill that bars illegal immigrants from purchasing insurance in new health insurance exchanges, which would serve people who do not have affordable employer-based coverage. Without access to those exchanges, such immigrants would have few health insurance options, although it’s not clear how many could afford or would want to purchase coverage.

There is little support in Congress for extending health insurance through Medicaid or subsidies to the millions of illegal immigrants in the United States.

Congress is seeking to cover people who are under 30 and who find insurance an expense they can live without because they are generally healthy; many in this group hold part-time jobs that do not offer coverage. Lawmakers’ goal is twofold: reducing the burden on hospitals to care for the uninsured and broadening the pool of people with insurance, since including those who are healthy helps lower costs for the ill. The legislation would create health plans with low monthly costs designed to appeal to young people.

Some experts say this group — 13 million Americans, according to some estimates — will remain sizable despite the mandate. But David Cutler, an economist at Harvard who advised Barack Obama on health care during the presidential campaign, said this group could be almost universally insured if the law was implemented properly, thereby reducing the total number of uninsured to much less than 20 million.

He said that if the bill becomes law, the government should look to Massachusetts, which passed a requirement in 2006 that every resident get insurance. The state ran commercials during the broadcast of Boston Red Sox baseball games encouraging people to sign up, helping reach young men. Only about 45,000 of the nearly 4 million who filed taxes last year in Massachusetts were fined for refusing to buy insurance.

Cutler said a similar effort could encourage people who would newly qualify for Medicaid, which would be expanded to cover most households earning less than $30,000 a year.

“If we do it right,” Cutler said, “I’m not very worried we will have lots of uninsured.”

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

// 0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write(‘
URL: ‘+url+’
‘);if (typeof FDCPUrl == ‘function’){FDCPUrl();}else if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert(‘To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK’);}}]]>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34664303/ns/politics-washington_post/

When, not if, it is you will discover the what I have said all along is the truth purpose of this so-called “reform” – a single-payer system.

Here’s how it will happen.

1.

Congress will pass and Obama will sign something containing this “individual mandate.”

2.

This will generate immediate lawsuits which will begin their way through the system, headed for the United States Supreme Court. That process will take several years. Note that the so-called “benefits” of this reform will also take several years to show up. This is not an accident.

3.

Meanwhile, the taxes begin immediately. This is exactly what happened in the 1930s by the way – taxes were raised right into the maw of an economic recession, and helped turn it into a Depression. Such it will be this time as well.

4.

Young, healthy people will pay the “fines” under protest and refuse to buy coverage (it’s cheaper than complying with a $15,000/year mandate to pay the $750/year fine!) and join said lawsuits in Step #2. This will in turn begin to force private companies out of the system (remember, there are also price controls in there!) as adverse selection will not be eliminated as promised.

5.

At some point the courts will strike the individual mandate. Free to not pay the fine or buy insurance and prevented from raising rates adverse selection will collapse the remaining private health insurers.

via The True Intent of Health “Reform” – The Market Ticker.

FOXNews.com – Get Ready for Health Care ‘Sticker Shock’.

REad the entire article.  for folks who have coverage you are going to pay more.  If you refuse they will make you pay in tax penalties…socialism in healthcare.  BTW remember that mammogram test they did?  They wanted to see if folks would accept that kind of rationing being voluntary.  That was an absolute no so it’s going to get forced on us.  For all you who voted these crooks in over and over..you are getting your just desserts and unfortunately the rest of us are having to pay..literally.

If this healthcare overhaul was so great CON-gress would not ahve to resort to this kind of childish behavior.

FOXNews.com – Reid Compares Opponents of Health Care Reform to Supporters of Slavery.

Hispanic lawmakers say an old adversary, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, has his fingerprints all over a push to prohibit illegal immigrants from buying health insurance plans in a new market for people who don’t get insurance through their employers.

“A forensic study would show it all leads back to Rahm Emanuel and the White House,” said Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who worked with Emanuel when the president’s top aide was in the House.

“This analysis is inaccurate,” said a White House aide who had been shown the comments made by Hispanic lawmakers.

The health care bill passed by the House earlier this month would prevent illegal immigrants from getting subsidies to buy insurance, but they would be permitted to buy plans from the exchange with their own money. The Senate bill would cut off that option.

via Hispanics blame Rahm for immigrant ban – Jonathan Allen – POLITICO.com.

Talk about irony.  While the usama obama crew pushed this latest power grabbing, freedom robbing pile of garbage through some of the folks who would also benefit are getting cut out..namely those who are in this country as lawbreakers.  It’s now these lawbreakers whining about how they are getting but out…of course this doesn’t change the fact the current administration is as much of a criminal enterprise as the last one was.

When seniors enroll in Medicare Advantage plans, they often drop Medigap policies because Medigap plans won’t pay deductibles, copayments or other cost-sharing under the Medicare health plan. The switch slashes Medigap revenues – and simultaneously impacts AARP royalties from Medigap insurance.

However, Sec. 1161 of the House bill would slash payments to Medicare Advantage health plans used by 20 percent of seniors and cause them to lose some benefits, including vision and dental coverage.

Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, one of the leading health-care policy organizations in the country, told WND’s Radio America AARP saw that it would lose revenue if it didn’t stop the Medicare Advantage programs.

“The House bill would dramatically cut money out of Medicare Advantage programs, forcing people to need the Medigap policies that are such a big cash cow for the AARP,” she said.

“Seniors are going to have higher costs in Medicare. Because of the cuts in Medicare, they are going to have ever more need for these Medigap policies. So the AARP, therefore, will be able to make even more money off of us,” Turner explained. “The legislation both kills competition that the AARP has with these Medicare Advantage programs, and it boosts the number of people who need the Medigap insurance because Medicare is going to become an even more deficient program than it is now if you take half a trillion dollars out of it.”

via Dark secrets of AARP finally exposed to light.

White House Reveals Identity of Firm That Sent Unsolicited E-Mails on Health Reform – Political News – FOXNews.com.

Obama the spammer!  If anything should rile you up it’s the fact he has now broken the can spam act!!!  This is a federal law!  While he hides his birt certificate that’s one thing but he is now in violation of federal law!  Come on folks let’s get writing to your federal congress critters!


The White House hired a private communications company based in Minnesota to distribute mass e-mails, helping to shed light on how some recipients received e-mails in support of President Obama’s health care plan without signing up for them, FOX News has learned.

The company, Govdelivery, describes itself as the world’s leading provider of government-to-citizen communication solutions and says its e-mail service provides a fully-automated on-demand public communication system.

It is still unknown how much taxpayer money the White House provides to Govdelivery for its services.

Click here to view Govdelivery’s Web site.

The revelation comes after the White House acknowledged this week that people were receiving unsolicited e-mails from the administration about health care reform and suggested the problem was with third-party groups that placed the recipients’ names on the distribution list.

Republicans quickly pounced on the news.

“This is yet another ominous chapter in the administration’s rabid campaign to jam its radical health care scheme onto an unwilling public by any means necessary,” Rep. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan said in a statement.

Govdelivery sent hundreds of e-mails from senior adviser David Axelrod asking supporters to help rebut criticism of Obama’s health care plan circulating on the Internet. It also sent e-mails highlighting Obama’s speech to the Muslim world in Cairo and the announcement of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court nominee.

Several FOX News viewers complained they received these e-mails even though they had never requested any communication from the White House.

On Monday, the White House implemented several new changes to its Web site, apparently aimed at reducing the number of people who receive unsolicited e-mails and at fighting charges that it’s collecting personal information on critics.

The White House also pulled the plug on a controversial e-mail address, flag@whitehouse.gov, that was established for supporters to report “fishy” information about health care reform.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has sent a letter to the White House asking for the “full truth” behind the Axelrod e-mails and expressing concern that “political e-mail address lists were used for official purposes.”

Chris Hansen, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union told FOX News that if the White House used the private firm, it’s the same as if it had sent the e-mails.

The White House insists that Govdelivery aggregates nothing and plays no role in the formation of its e-mail list; it is merely an end-product e-mail distributor.

Govdelivery does extensive work with a bevy of federal, state, and local agencies, including 11 Cabinet-level departments such as Defense, State, and Justice. Among the tasks Govdelivery performs are FBI internal e-mails and external regional crime alerts, and FEMA hurricane or other natural disaster alerts.

In fact, before Jan. 1, Govdelivery handled 85 percent of mass e-mail deliveries for federal agencies.

The White House said it hired Govdelivery based on its performance with those agencies. The company was hired after Jan. 1 but before Obama took office on Jan. 20.

The White House notes that Govdelivery also handles mass e-mails for Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, both Republicans.

Earlier this week, Govdelivery’s president, Scott Burns, declined to comment to FOX News on whether the White House had used his firm to send out the Axelrod e-mails.

FOX News’ Major Garrett and Eric Shawn contributed to this report.

Obamacare will be 1 big ‘death panel’.

This article pretty much sums everything up.

Obama seeks to track visits to .gov websites.

I just got Axelrod’s pleading e-mail telling me the the “myths” about Obamacare.  It’s quite pathetic they are not resorting to spamming to try to win this.  It’s funny i got it in my hotmail account but not yahoo or gmail(yet).  I may blackhole the whitehouse(and most .gov) on my own servers after this.

‘Obamacare:’ What does the Constitution have to say?.

The states have already risen up and killed REALID.  Will they have the gumption to do the same to Obamacare?

Town halls burst with Obama ‘plants’.

It’s going to continue to be this way.  Even Bill Reilly is going to the healthcare reform side.  turn off the tv and do some research on the net..it’s obvious this is a bill of goods the likes we have never seen.  You think the spendulous bill was bad?  You ain’t seen nothing yet if you allow this bill to pass.

‘End-of-Life’ Counseling Intensifies Health Care Debate – Political News – FOXNews.com.

This is only part of Obama-care.  If you don’t take the euthanasia counseling and kill yourself they’ll just deny you care based on your age.

A provision in President Obama’s health care reform bill encourages “end-of- life” counseling for seniors — sparking euthanasia fears among some of the legislation’s critics and leading others to believe that the White House is looking to save money by pressuring insurers to provide less coverage to seniors.

The provision, tucked deep within the House bill, would provide Medicare coverage for an end-of-life consultation every five years, and more frequent sessions if a person is suffering a life-threatening disease.

Health providers would be required to explain to seniors the end-of-life services available, including “palliative care and hospice.”

“This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich. said in a statement last month.

But the sessions are not required, as President Obama reassured seniors last week at an AARP town hall meeting, when one woman said she’d been told that the policy requires everyone of Medicare age to be visited and told they have to decide how they wish to die.

“Nobody is going to be forcing you to make a set of decisions on end-of-life care based on, you know, some bureaucratic law in Washington,” the president said.

Obama encourages people to create living wills, but it’s not clear if he supports Medicare reimbursement for “end-of-life” counseling.

A Harvard study released earlier this year directly linked end-of-life counseling with lower health care costs and better quality of life for patients with advanced cancers.

Researchers, who interviewed 603 advanced-cancer patients about whether they had end-of-life conversations with their physicians, found that patients who did had an estimated average of $1,876 in health care expenses during their final week of life, compared with $2,917 for those who didn’t. Patients also associated higher costs with a worse quality of death during their final week and typically did not live longer if they received intensive care.

“As the nation looks to ways to improve patient care and reduce costs of health care, end-of-life conversations should be considered, ” said the study’s senior author, Holly Prigerson, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

“Policies that promote increased communication, such as incentives for end-of-life conversations, may be cost-effective ways to both improve care and reduce some of the rising health care expenditures.”

White House aides acknowledge it’s a sensitive issue.

A quarter of all Medicare spending takes place in a patient’s final year of life, and studies show most people facing a terminal illness or simply very old age prefer less medical intervention to more. That suggests the potential for savings.

Last fiscal year, the government spent $455 billion on Medicare — 15 percent of the federal budget — to cover 46 million Americans. Medicare spending is projected to skyrocket to 20 percent of the budget by 2019 as baby boomers increasingly become eligible for the program.

In 2010, 40.2 million seniors 65 years and older will be eligible for Medicare. That number is projected to rise to 54.8 million in 2020 and 88.5 million in 2050, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

But Medicare’s program for hospital stays is already spilling red ink. A report earlier this year showed that because of rapidly declining revenues, the Medicare trust fund for hospital expenses since last year has been collecting less in taxes and interest income than it pays out in benefits.

The fund’s reserves will be exhausted by 2017, making it insolvent two years earlier than the trustees predicted last year. Medicare’s total unfunded obligations, including its programs that use general revenues to pay for doctors’ fees and prescription drugs, have reached $37.8 trillion.

When the Bush administration expanded Medicare reimbursement to cover hospice care, which is less expensive than hospital care, hospice use grew 240 percent. Studies show people prefer hospice care but officials are concerned about people outside a patient’s family or doctor influencing the decision to give up on curative care.

“And that’s where a lot of people fear that some of these ideas in these bills lead you to and that’s unethical as far as I’m concerned,” Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said.

Charmaine Yoest, president and chief executive of Americans United for Life, said in a blog post that health reform “must respect life, and not contain provisions that mandate or encourage the withdrawal or curtailment of effective life-sustaining treatment to the terminally ill, the chronically ill, or the permanently disabled.”

Lawmakers say making end-of-life decisions ahead of time is a good thing — and it should be done early.

“Think about it when you’re 50 years old instead of when you’re 85, what sort of care you want,” Grassley said.

The White House says even though Medicare would reimburse for the counseling sessions, it wouldn’t conduct them.

“These decisions will be made by doctors and patients,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

And Gibbs accused critics of misrepresenting that part of the health reform bill.

“I think there are people that have knowingly spread inaccurate information to hold up progress on health reform,” he said.

FOX News’ Wendell Goler and FOXNews.com’s Stephen Clark contributed to this report.