/PRNewswire -- As the insurance industry lobbies state insurance commissioners in Orlando to weaken modest regulations on health insurance premiums, Consumer Watchdog's leaders reiterated their call for President Obama to place a moratorium on premium increases, articulated this week in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.
"Health insurance companies have declared war on President Obama's healthcare plan," argues Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court, author of "The Progressive's Guide To Raising Hell." "The struggling middle class cannot afford more double-digit premium hikes, and federal law says we are owed an explanation before having to pay them. Obama should forbid premium hikes until the companies comply with pricing provisions of the new federal law."
Read the Los Angeles Times op-ed calling for an executive order freezing rates: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=36580
On Thursday, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners is expected to take a final vote on new health reform rules requiring insurers to spend at least 80-85% of consumers' premiums on health care. State regulators continue to discuss how much information health insurance companies must disclose about unreasonable premium increases.
The insurance industry is pushing a series of last-minute amendments at the meeting of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners this week that would weaken regulation under the health reform law, including measures that would allow them to:
- Maintain low spending on health care in some states if they spend a higher percentage in other states. This "aggregation" of medical spending across states will nullify the new medical spending rules for the very consumers they are meant to help - those whose insurance plans spend too much on administration and profits.
- Artificially boost the amount that insurers report spending on medical care. "Credibility" adjustments are meant to account for fluctuations in health care spending for plans with fewer customers by increasing the reported medical loss ratio. Insurance companies' proposal could allow insurers to get away with intentionally low medical spending, said Consumer Watchdog.
- Falsely identify administrative costs – including broker commissions, fraud prevention, claims handling and denials – as medical spending.
Public scrutiny of unreasonable premiums is the health reform law's only check on rate increases. However, because regulations are still being written, insurance companies are not currently justifying unreasonable increases. President Obama has the obligation to issue an Executive Order freezing premiums until insurers begin complying with the law, said Consumer Watchdog.
"Insurance commissioners have a choice. Send the current modest version of medical spending regulations to HHS, or give insurers free rein to continue spending too much money on bloated profits and paper-pushers and not enough on actual health care," said Carmen Balber, Washington DC director for Consumer Watchdog. "In the meantime, insurers rush to raise premiums now just in case they have to rein in spending tomorrow. President Obama has the power to protect consumers from arbitrary price hikes by freezing premiums until insurers explain how they're spent in the full light of day."
Insurance companies have lobbied to limit the information made public in the rate justification considered by state regulators today. Consumer Watchdog argued for more disclosure to explain how insurers spend customer premiums, including:
- Lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions;
- Advertising and marketing expenditures; and
- Transactions and transfers of funds to affiliates.
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Support for Universal Healthcare Dropping Among all American Adults According to LightSource Poll
/PRNewswire/ -- When asked how much additional money they are willing to pay each year to achieve truly universal healthcare coverage for all United States citizens, Americans are becoming less willing to provide their own personal funds. According to LightSource Poll, conducted by KJT Group, the average amount that an adult is willing to spend has decreased dramatically over the past year.
The average adult was willing to spend $201 additionally per year as of February 2010. This dropped to $123 per year as of July/August. These figures are broken down in greater detail in Table 1.
Only 32% of all adults are willing to pay any additional amount of money on a yearly basis as of July/August 2010.
For each wave, there were no statistical differences between Democrats, Republicans and Independents in the average amount they are willing to spend on a yearly basis. Democrats and Independents are more likely than Republicans to contribute any amount toward achieving universal healthcare coverage.
Democrats are far more likely than Republicans or Independents to agree with the statement that "Health care is a right, and should be provided to all citizens regardless of ability to pay or their behavior." These results are shown in Table 2.
This wave of the LightSource poll was conducted among 1,000 U.S. adults (18 years or older) between July 29 and August 6, 2010. This was a non-probability, stratified sample, collected via web-based interviews. As such, margin of error cannot be accurately estimated. In addition to the results shown here, an oversample of 600 New York State residents was collected and is published separately. For more information such as a detailed methodology, or additional results from this wave of the LightSource, go to www.lightsourcepoll.com.
The average adult was willing to spend $201 additionally per year as of February 2010. This dropped to $123 per year as of July/August. These figures are broken down in greater detail in Table 1.
Incremental Additional Amount Adults are Willing to Pay
Yearly to Achieve Universal Healthcare
February '10 July/August '10
------------ ---------------
$0 73% 68%
$1-$50 8% 11%
$51-$100 6% 8%
$101-$150 1% 1%
$151-$200 2% 2%
$201-$250 0% 1%
Over $250 10% 10%
--------- --- ---
Mean $201 $123
---- ---- ----
Table 1: How much additional adults are willing to pay annually in
order to achieve truly universal healthcare coverageOnly 32% of all adults are willing to pay any additional amount of money on a yearly basis as of July/August 2010.
For each wave, there were no statistical differences between Democrats, Republicans and Independents in the average amount they are willing to spend on a yearly basis. Democrats and Independents are more likely than Republicans to contribute any amount toward achieving universal healthcare coverage.
Democrats are far more likely than Republicans or Independents to agree with the statement that "Health care is a right, and should be provided to all citizens regardless of ability to pay or their behavior." These results are shown in Table 2.
Democrats Republicans Independents
--------- ----------- ------------
Completely agree/
somewhat agree 69% 26% 54%
----------------- --- --- ---
Neither agree nor
disagree 13% 20% 16%
----------------- --- --- ---
Completely
disagree/
somewhat
disagree 17% 54% 30%
---------- --- --- ---
Table 2: Percentage of adults who completely agree or somewhat
agree that "Health care is a right, and should
be provided to all citizens regardless of ability to pay or their
behavior." July/August '10
While Democrats and Independents have remained relatively consistent with their agreement over the past year, Republicans have grown more antagonistic with this notion. 33% of Republicans completely disagree with the above statement.This wave of the LightSource poll was conducted among 1,000 U.S. adults (18 years or older) between July 29 and August 6, 2010. This was a non-probability, stratified sample, collected via web-based interviews. As such, margin of error cannot be accurately estimated. In addition to the results shown here, an oversample of 600 New York State residents was collected and is published separately. For more information such as a detailed methodology, or additional results from this wave of the LightSource, go to www.lightsourcepoll.com.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
ATR: The Individual Mandate Excise Tax is a Tax
/PRNewswire/ -- A close reading of President Obama's healthcare plan finds several terms to describe the tax Americans will pay if they choose not to purchase qualifying health insurance. These terms include "payment," "assessment," and "individual responsibility."
-- This same tax has also variously been referred to as a "penalty," a
"fee," or a "fine." In fact, it's none of those things, precisely.
It's a tax. The various synonyms used are designed to hide that
simple fact. The reason for wanting to do so is clear: since this tax
would be assigned to any uninsured American (including those making
less than $250,000 per year), it's a pretty apparent violation of the
President's promise not to raise "any form" of taxes on working
families.
-- The evidence that this tax on the uninsured is in fact a tax comes
from a thorough reading of the Senate healthcare bill's uninsurance
tax section (which the Obama plan specifically says it is starting
from).
-- Page 322 of the Senate bill (the "Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act") says that "any penalty imposed by this section with respect
to any month shall be included with a taxpayer's return under Chapter
1 [of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)] for the taxable year which
includes such month." The procedure to collect the tax on page 336 of
the bill references Chapter 68 of the IRC. On page 337 of the bill, a
new Chapter 48 is added to Subtitle D of the Code (Miscellaneous
Excise Taxes) in order to create the uninsurance tax. Page 341 of the
bill continues to reference various parts of the Code that need to be
amended in order to cover this new tax.
-- Anyone reading this precise legislative language can see how this tax
would be collected. An uninsured individual would add the excise tax
to their regular income tax burden on the 1040 Form every April. It
is much like other excise taxes collected on the 1040 (early IRA
withdrawal tax, for example).
Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
-- This same tax has also variously been referred to as a "penalty," a
"fee," or a "fine." In fact, it's none of those things, precisely.
It's a tax. The various synonyms used are designed to hide that
simple fact. The reason for wanting to do so is clear: since this tax
would be assigned to any uninsured American (including those making
less than $250,000 per year), it's a pretty apparent violation of the
President's promise not to raise "any form" of taxes on working
families.
-- The evidence that this tax on the uninsured is in fact a tax comes
from a thorough reading of the Senate healthcare bill's uninsurance
tax section (which the Obama plan specifically says it is starting
from).
-- Page 322 of the Senate bill (the "Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act") says that "any penalty imposed by this section with respect
to any month shall be included with a taxpayer's return under Chapter
1 [of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)] for the taxable year which
includes such month." The procedure to collect the tax on page 336 of
the bill references Chapter 68 of the IRC. On page 337 of the bill, a
new Chapter 48 is added to Subtitle D of the Code (Miscellaneous
Excise Taxes) in order to create the uninsurance tax. Page 341 of the
bill continues to reference various parts of the Code that need to be
amended in order to cover this new tax.
-- Anyone reading this precise legislative language can see how this tax
would be collected. An uninsured individual would add the excise tax
to their regular income tax burden on the 1040 Form every April. It
is much like other excise taxes collected on the 1040 (early IRA
withdrawal tax, for example).
Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, November 30, 2009
CBO Confirms That Premiums Will Increase Under the Senate Healthcare Reform Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) issued the following statement regarding the estimate released today by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):
The CBO today confirmed what many economists, actuaries, and health policy experts have said for weeks: the Senate healthcare reform bill would make coverage more expensive for millions of people buying individual insurance policies.
While CBO recognizes the significant impact of the proposal, it understates the effect in three areas:
-- Several provisions in the Senate bill will cause many people to wait
until they are sick to purchase coverage, significantly driving up
premiums for everyone. These include severely restricting discounts
for young people, very low financial penalties for not purchasing
coverage, while still requiring insurers to guarantee coverage
regardless of preexisting conditions. Many young people, in
particular, are likely to pay the nominal fine, rather than purchase
coverage that costs far more than the penalty.
-- Adding the previously uninsured will significantly increase premiums
in the individual market. Contrary to CBO, Oliver Wyman, Inc.'s
analysis of actual claims' costs in the individual market predicts
that the uninsured will actually be 20 percent more expensive to
insure than those in the individual market today. Had CBO adopted a
similar assumption, their premium impact would have been approximately
30 percent higher.
-- The impact will vary significantly by state because of regional
differences in rating laws today. Oliver Wyman, Inc. found that
two-thirds of Americans live in states where the average premium
impact will be much higher than a national average.
Caution should be used in describing CBO's results on how many people will see lower premiums because of the federal subsidies. It should be noted that many of these people were previously uninsured and therefore did not pay any premiums. While we strongly support extending coverage to everyone and providing needed subsidies, we should be careful not to misconstrue these as savings.
We are pleased that the debate is now focusing on how the bills will make coverage less affordable to the American people. We encourage the Senate to use the CBO findings, as well as the analyses of Oliver Wyman, to make much needed improvements to the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to ensure that it will be affordable and sustainable for everyone.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The CBO today confirmed what many economists, actuaries, and health policy experts have said for weeks: the Senate healthcare reform bill would make coverage more expensive for millions of people buying individual insurance policies.
While CBO recognizes the significant impact of the proposal, it understates the effect in three areas:
-- Several provisions in the Senate bill will cause many people to wait
until they are sick to purchase coverage, significantly driving up
premiums for everyone. These include severely restricting discounts
for young people, very low financial penalties for not purchasing
coverage, while still requiring insurers to guarantee coverage
regardless of preexisting conditions. Many young people, in
particular, are likely to pay the nominal fine, rather than purchase
coverage that costs far more than the penalty.
-- Adding the previously uninsured will significantly increase premiums
in the individual market. Contrary to CBO, Oliver Wyman, Inc.'s
analysis of actual claims' costs in the individual market predicts
that the uninsured will actually be 20 percent more expensive to
insure than those in the individual market today. Had CBO adopted a
similar assumption, their premium impact would have been approximately
30 percent higher.
-- The impact will vary significantly by state because of regional
differences in rating laws today. Oliver Wyman, Inc. found that
two-thirds of Americans live in states where the average premium
impact will be much higher than a national average.
Caution should be used in describing CBO's results on how many people will see lower premiums because of the federal subsidies. It should be noted that many of these people were previously uninsured and therefore did not pay any premiums. While we strongly support extending coverage to everyone and providing needed subsidies, we should be careful not to misconstrue these as savings.
We are pleased that the debate is now focusing on how the bills will make coverage less affordable to the American people. We encourage the Senate to use the CBO findings, as well as the analyses of Oliver Wyman, to make much needed improvements to the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to ensure that it will be affordable and sustainable for everyone.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, November 6, 2009
Obamacare's nasty surprise
Fewer insured, higher costs might be the result
Obamacare could have the unintended consequence of raising health insurance premiums and causing a decline in the number of people with insurance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110504327.html
Note: This one is a must read!
---
Community News You Can Use
Follow us on Twitter: @gafrontpage
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
www.PoliticalPotluck.com
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
---
Obamacare could have the unintended consequence of raising health insurance premiums and causing a decline in the number of people with insurance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110504327.html
Note: This one is a must read!
---
Community News You Can Use
Follow us on Twitter: @gafrontpage
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
www.PoliticalPotluck.com
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
---
Doctors Blast the AMA for Pelosi-Care Endorsement; Will Hold Public 'Shout-out' at AMA Houston Meeting on Saturday Nov. 7 With Tea Party Protestors
/PRNewswire/ -- The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) blasted the AMA for again publicly endorsing the massive Democrat healthcare reform bill in Congress.
"The AMA has sold out patients, and sold out the profession of medicine for a few dollars of Medicare money," said Ms. Serkes. "In July they endorsed HR 3200 and took a lot of heat and lost members in droves. "With the endorsement of HR 3962, it's now painfully clear the AMA does not represent it membership."
A large public demonstration has been organized by physician coalition "Take Back Medicine" on Saturday in Houston. After speaking at the Tea Party Express at the Sam Houston Raceway, AAPS Director Juliette Madrigal-Dersch, M.D. of Marble Falls, TX, and Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, will ride the Tea Party Express bus, leading a caravan grassroots activists to join protesting doctors at the AMA meeting.
"They have one last chance to rescind this endorsement," said Serkes. "If they don't, the damage with the medical community will never be healed."
SATURDAY NOV 7:
Tea Party Express Rally
11:30 AM
SamHouston Race Parkway
7575 N. Sam Houston Parkway West
Houston, TX
Caravan to AMA meeting immediately after TPE rally
Approximately 1:30 pm
Arrival at Brown Convention Center
Approximately 2 pm
Houston, TX
www.TakeBackMedicine.com
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"The AMA has sold out patients, and sold out the profession of medicine for a few dollars of Medicare money," said Ms. Serkes. "In July they endorsed HR 3200 and took a lot of heat and lost members in droves. "With the endorsement of HR 3962, it's now painfully clear the AMA does not represent it membership."
A large public demonstration has been organized by physician coalition "Take Back Medicine" on Saturday in Houston. After speaking at the Tea Party Express at the Sam Houston Raceway, AAPS Director Juliette Madrigal-Dersch, M.D. of Marble Falls, TX, and Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, will ride the Tea Party Express bus, leading a caravan grassroots activists to join protesting doctors at the AMA meeting.
"They have one last chance to rescind this endorsement," said Serkes. "If they don't, the damage with the medical community will never be healed."
SATURDAY NOV 7:
Tea Party Express Rally
11:30 AM
SamHouston Race Parkway
7575 N. Sam Houston Parkway West
Houston, TX
Caravan to AMA meeting immediately after TPE rally
Approximately 1:30 pm
Arrival at Brown Convention Center
Approximately 2 pm
Houston, TX
www.TakeBackMedicine.com
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Guess who’s funding ObamaCare advocates?
Facebook finding:
Greg Sargent notes that a familiar face will start showering cash on organizations trying to build support for ObamaCare. George Soros, who once pledged his entire fortune in an unsuccessful effort to unseat George Bush, has pledged another $5 million to overcome popular opposition to the government takeover of the health-care industry. Sargent rightly notes that this will become a flashpoint for both sides of the divide:
In another sign of the urgency gripping the pro-health care reform camp, billionaire George Soros has pledged to sink $5 million into the fight, the group getting the money confirmed.
Soros — whose operation carefully guards the privacy of such donations — made the pledge to Health Care For America Now, the leading coalition of pro-reform groups, unions and providers, HCAN chief Richard Kirsch confirmed in an email that was forwarded to me. …
The Soros pledge is noteworthy, because both sides will seize on it. The right will say it shows the real astroturfing is coming from the pro-reform side — billionaire bogeyman Soros is bankrolling this fight!
The left will cite the donation to demand that HCAN show real results. Some on the left, such as blogger Jane Hamsher, have been asking why heavily-bankrolled HCAN hasn’t been able to secure more commitments from Dem members of Congress to stand firm behind a public option.
However, that group may run afoul of Rahm Emanuel and the White House. Emanuel has demanded that HCAN and other advocacy groups focus their sights on Republicans and stop attacking vulnerable Democrats — which, in this case, would be those who have shown great reluctance to get on board with ObamaCare. If HCAN takes Emanuel’s advice, it’s hard to see what they’ll use the money to do, other than buy advertising that strictly focuses on the issue. That issue hasn’t played well thus far, and $5 million of advertising won’t make a dent in the opposition.
That’s where the pharmaceutical industry’s cash will come in handy:
The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.
The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.
With House Democrats moving to extract more than that just as the drug makers finalized their advertising plans, the industry lobbyists pressed the Obama administration for public reassurances that it had agreed to cap the industry’s additional costs at $80 billion. The White House, meanwhile, has struggled to mollify its most pivotal health industry ally without alienating Congressional Democrats who want to demand far more of the drug makers. White House officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
To give this some perspective, it helps to recall that John McCain spent $126 million on advertising for the entire general election campaign in 2008. Why have the pharmaceuticals gone for ObamaCare in a big way? Obama promised not to use Medicare’s market advantage to drive down prices any more than the $80 billion already pledged by the industry. That’s basically price-fixing of a kind that the Federal Trade Commission would investigate if it involved a private-sector insurance giant.
Remind me again which side is Astroturfing and getting big, powerful firms funding their operation, and which one represents the actual sense of Americans on government-controlled health care.
From:
from http://www.facebook.com/l/;Hotair.com
via Facebook group: Expose Soros & Other Far-Left Financiers
Greg Sargent notes that a familiar face will start showering cash on organizations trying to build support for ObamaCare. George Soros, who once pledged his entire fortune in an unsuccessful effort to unseat George Bush, has pledged another $5 million to overcome popular opposition to the government takeover of the health-care industry. Sargent rightly notes that this will become a flashpoint for both sides of the divide:
In another sign of the urgency gripping the pro-health care reform camp, billionaire George Soros has pledged to sink $5 million into the fight, the group getting the money confirmed.
Soros — whose operation carefully guards the privacy of such donations — made the pledge to Health Care For America Now, the leading coalition of pro-reform groups, unions and providers, HCAN chief Richard Kirsch confirmed in an email that was forwarded to me. …
The Soros pledge is noteworthy, because both sides will seize on it. The right will say it shows the real astroturfing is coming from the pro-reform side — billionaire bogeyman Soros is bankrolling this fight!
The left will cite the donation to demand that HCAN show real results. Some on the left, such as blogger Jane Hamsher, have been asking why heavily-bankrolled HCAN hasn’t been able to secure more commitments from Dem members of Congress to stand firm behind a public option.
However, that group may run afoul of Rahm Emanuel and the White House. Emanuel has demanded that HCAN and other advocacy groups focus their sights on Republicans and stop attacking vulnerable Democrats — which, in this case, would be those who have shown great reluctance to get on board with ObamaCare. If HCAN takes Emanuel’s advice, it’s hard to see what they’ll use the money to do, other than buy advertising that strictly focuses on the issue. That issue hasn’t played well thus far, and $5 million of advertising won’t make a dent in the opposition.
That’s where the pharmaceutical industry’s cash will come in handy:
The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.
The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.
With House Democrats moving to extract more than that just as the drug makers finalized their advertising plans, the industry lobbyists pressed the Obama administration for public reassurances that it had agreed to cap the industry’s additional costs at $80 billion. The White House, meanwhile, has struggled to mollify its most pivotal health industry ally without alienating Congressional Democrats who want to demand far more of the drug makers. White House officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
To give this some perspective, it helps to recall that John McCain spent $126 million on advertising for the entire general election campaign in 2008. Why have the pharmaceuticals gone for ObamaCare in a big way? Obama promised not to use Medicare’s market advantage to drive down prices any more than the $80 billion already pledged by the industry. That’s basically price-fixing of a kind that the Federal Trade Commission would investigate if it involved a private-sector insurance giant.
Remind me again which side is Astroturfing and getting big, powerful firms funding their operation, and which one represents the actual sense of Americans on government-controlled health care.
From:
from http://www.facebook.com/l/;Hotair.com
via Facebook group: Expose Soros & Other Far-Left Financiers
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Doctors demand Obama apology
Dr. Richard S. Kerr, M.D., a West Virginia Libertarian Party member and a retired doctor with 36 years experience, asked President Barack Obama last Thursday to apologize for comments made in his July 22nd press conference accusing doctors of conspiring to make children sicker for profits.
“President Obama should be ashamed of himself for trying to scare Americans into supporting his government takeover of medicine by falsely accusing doctors of making children sicker. I have never heard a more disgusting or blatantly phony conspiracy theory. We treat our patients with the respect, care and concern you will never find in Obama’s government-run rationed care bureaucracy,” said Dr. Kerr.
“On behalf of my colleagues, I respectfully ask President Obama to apologize for such a slanderous lie and ask him to stop engaging in sickening conspiracy theories to push his government-run scheme. These cheap scare tactics are beneath the dignity of the office of The President and perfectly illustrate why more and more Americans are losing faith in Barack Obama.”
In his July 22nd press conference, Obama claimed, “…you come in and you've got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, you know what, I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out.”
“For President Obama’s information, pediatricians do not perform tonsillectomies. If he doesn’t know that, then he has no business centrally planning your family’s health care,” said Dr. Kerr.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
“President Obama should be ashamed of himself for trying to scare Americans into supporting his government takeover of medicine by falsely accusing doctors of making children sicker. I have never heard a more disgusting or blatantly phony conspiracy theory. We treat our patients with the respect, care and concern you will never find in Obama’s government-run rationed care bureaucracy,” said Dr. Kerr.
“On behalf of my colleagues, I respectfully ask President Obama to apologize for such a slanderous lie and ask him to stop engaging in sickening conspiracy theories to push his government-run scheme. These cheap scare tactics are beneath the dignity of the office of The President and perfectly illustrate why more and more Americans are losing faith in Barack Obama.”
In his July 22nd press conference, Obama claimed, “…you come in and you've got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, you know what, I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out.”
“For President Obama’s information, pediatricians do not perform tonsillectomies. If he doesn’t know that, then he has no business centrally planning your family’s health care,” said Dr. Kerr.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Americans Fear the Consequences of a New Government-Run "Public" Health Plan
Democrats who support a government takeover of health care are citing the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, which they claim shows support for a government-run system. Yet that very same poll shows widespread concern about potential consequences of a government-run health plan on the relationship Americans have with their doctor and the quality of care they receive – facts which have been reflected in other polls. For example, the New York Times/CBS News poll shows that:
63 percent were concerned that their own health care would get worse under a government-run system of health care;
68 percent believed a government-run system would limit their access to treatments and quality care; and
53 percent were concerned they would have to give up their own doctor under a government-run system.
What’s clear is that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the consequences of a government-run health system. They want access to their doctor, they want access to the quality care they are accustomed to, and they want access to the medical treatments they need when they need it rather than being subject to the whims of a government bureaucrat that makes health care decisions at the expense of patients and doctors. All would be jeopardized under a government-run scheme being proposed by congressional Democrats.
Here are the Top 10 facts about the House Democrats’ health care proposal and the consequences it will have for the American people and their health care:
Costs Middle-Class Families and Small Businesses Billions
Forces Tens of Millions Out of their Current Health Care Coverage
Destroys Millions of American Jobs
Puts Bureaucrats in Charge of Key Medical Decisions
Costs Future Generations Money They Don’t Have
Cuts Seniors’ Key Medicare Benefits and Limits Choices
Places a New Mandate on Individuals
Raises Taxes on Families, Small Businesses
A Missed Opportunity to Reduce Health Care Costs
Harms Small Businesses, Costs Jobs
Congressional Democrats can continue to ignore these consequences if they choose, but the facts are not on their side. The House Democrats’ plan could force more than 100 million Americans off of their current health care plan and onto the government rolls, according to a Lewin Group study published earlier this year. A Congressional Budget Office report said a similar plan authored by Senate Democrats that would force at least 23 million Americans off of their current plans. And according to the Associated Press, even the White House admits that the President’s promises about allowing the American people to keep their health care shouldn’t be taken literally.
House Republicans have a better solution: a plan that ensures all Americans who like their health care coverage can actually keep it. The plan outlined by the House GOP Health Care Reform Solutions Group, led by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), is designed to:
Make quality health care coverage affordable and accessible for every American, regardless of pre-existing health conditions.
Protect Americans from being forced into a new government-run health care plan that would eliminate the health care coverage that more than 100 million Americans currently receive through their job.
Let Americans who like their health care coverage keep it, and give all Americans the freedom to choose the health plan that best meets their needs.
Ensure that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats.
Improve Americans’ lives through effective prevention, wellness, and disease management programs, while developing new treatments and cures for life-threatening diseases.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
63 percent were concerned that their own health care would get worse under a government-run system of health care;
68 percent believed a government-run system would limit their access to treatments and quality care; and
53 percent were concerned they would have to give up their own doctor under a government-run system.
What’s clear is that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the consequences of a government-run health system. They want access to their doctor, they want access to the quality care they are accustomed to, and they want access to the medical treatments they need when they need it rather than being subject to the whims of a government bureaucrat that makes health care decisions at the expense of patients and doctors. All would be jeopardized under a government-run scheme being proposed by congressional Democrats.
Here are the Top 10 facts about the House Democrats’ health care proposal and the consequences it will have for the American people and their health care:
Costs Middle-Class Families and Small Businesses Billions
Forces Tens of Millions Out of their Current Health Care Coverage
Destroys Millions of American Jobs
Puts Bureaucrats in Charge of Key Medical Decisions
Costs Future Generations Money They Don’t Have
Cuts Seniors’ Key Medicare Benefits and Limits Choices
Places a New Mandate on Individuals
Raises Taxes on Families, Small Businesses
A Missed Opportunity to Reduce Health Care Costs
Harms Small Businesses, Costs Jobs
Congressional Democrats can continue to ignore these consequences if they choose, but the facts are not on their side. The House Democrats’ plan could force more than 100 million Americans off of their current health care plan and onto the government rolls, according to a Lewin Group study published earlier this year. A Congressional Budget Office report said a similar plan authored by Senate Democrats that would force at least 23 million Americans off of their current plans. And according to the Associated Press, even the White House admits that the President’s promises about allowing the American people to keep their health care shouldn’t be taken literally.
House Republicans have a better solution: a plan that ensures all Americans who like their health care coverage can actually keep it. The plan outlined by the House GOP Health Care Reform Solutions Group, led by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), is designed to:
Make quality health care coverage affordable and accessible for every American, regardless of pre-existing health conditions.
Protect Americans from being forced into a new government-run health care plan that would eliminate the health care coverage that more than 100 million Americans currently receive through their job.
Let Americans who like their health care coverage keep it, and give all Americans the freedom to choose the health plan that best meets their needs.
Ensure that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats.
Improve Americans’ lives through effective prevention, wellness, and disease management programs, while developing new treatments and cures for life-threatening diseases.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, May 28, 2009
ATR: Obama's VAT Trial Balloon Dusts Off Bill Clinton's 1993 Playbook
/PRNewswire / -- When it comes to finding a way to finance government-run health care, the administration of Barack Obama is floating a VAT trial balloon echoing that of President Bill Clinton in 1993.
The Obama administration's VAT trial balloon is being floated by Kenneth Baer, spokesman for Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag, who was quoted in the Washington Post on Wednesday as saying a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" but did not rule it out, despite Obama's central campaign promise not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000: "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers."
In April of 1993, newly inaugurated President Clinton was exploring ways to pay for his government health care plan, including a VAT, as noted at the time in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Trial balloons wafting over Washington say the administration may be considering a value-added tax -- VAT for short -- to fund universal health care coverage. And President Bill Clinton himself is keeping the balloons aloft. "There are all kinds of arguments for it on policy grounds," Clinton said Friday at a press conference. Clinton said he hadn't decided to include a VAT in his health care plan. But he said he didn't mind the fact that two top administration officials said they liked the idea.' We've had a lot of people from business and labor come to us saying they thought that that tax would help make their particular industries more competitive in the global economy," Clinton told a reporter, who implied that the aides were speaking out of turn. (Gallagher, J. (1993, April 25). Clinton Stirs a VAT; New Tax Enters Health Debate. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.)
"The people closest to Obama seem to believe he wasn't telling the truth when he promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Otherwise they would have outright rejected the mere mention of a VAT, a tax that would be paid by all Americans."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The Obama administration's VAT trial balloon is being floated by Kenneth Baer, spokesman for Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag, who was quoted in the Washington Post on Wednesday as saying a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" but did not rule it out, despite Obama's central campaign promise not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000: "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers."
In April of 1993, newly inaugurated President Clinton was exploring ways to pay for his government health care plan, including a VAT, as noted at the time in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Trial balloons wafting over Washington say the administration may be considering a value-added tax -- VAT for short -- to fund universal health care coverage. And President Bill Clinton himself is keeping the balloons aloft. "There are all kinds of arguments for it on policy grounds," Clinton said Friday at a press conference. Clinton said he hadn't decided to include a VAT in his health care plan. But he said he didn't mind the fact that two top administration officials said they liked the idea.' We've had a lot of people from business and labor come to us saying they thought that that tax would help make their particular industries more competitive in the global economy," Clinton told a reporter, who implied that the aides were speaking out of turn. (Gallagher, J. (1993, April 25). Clinton Stirs a VAT; New Tax Enters Health Debate. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.)
"The people closest to Obama seem to believe he wasn't telling the truth when he promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Otherwise they would have outright rejected the mere mention of a VAT, a tax that would be paid by all Americans."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Upcoming Health Legislation Can Succeed Only If It Addresses Long Term Care for All Americans
/PRNewswire/ -- President Obama, backed by Congressional leaders, has called for affordable, accessible, high-quality health care for all Americans. "But that won't be enough," says Denise Gott, "unless it also embraces the long term care needs of millions of longer-living Americans." Gott is Chairman of the Board of LTC Financial Partners LLC (LTCFP) -- http://www.ltcfp.com/ -- one of the nation's most experienced long term care insurance agencies.
"If President Obama's three goals -- universal coverage, choice, and cost control -- are to be met," Gott says, "provision for long term care must be part of the legislative mix." Obama's goals, in his own words, are listed below, followed by Gott's reasoning.
1. Obama: "All Americans have to have quality, affordable healthcare."
Gott's response: "About 46 million Americans, close to 1 in 6, lack health insurance, but many times that number lack long term care insurance. Only about 9 million Americans have it -- out of a population of more than 300 million. And among those at greatest risk, 45 and older, more than 9 in 10 go uncovered. Does it make sense to protect ourselves from shorter-term illnesses or injuries, and neglect the longer-lasting ones?"
2. Obama: "Americans have to be able to choose their own doctor and their own plan."
Gott's response: "It's great for people to have options. For example, to stick with their employer's health plan, or opt for a public alternative (if one is legislated). But when it comes to long term care, choice today is very limited. The majority who lack LTC insurance face a bleak, narrow prospect. They must spend down their assets to pay their bills; to qualify for public assistance through Medicaid, they must in effect become poor; and then they're forced into an often overcrowded nursing home when they might prefer home care or assisted living."
3. Obama: "The rising cost of healthcare has to be brought down."
Gott's response: "The government estimates that healthcare could consume one fifth of the economy in ten years, up from one sixth today. Clearly that huge drag needs to be moderated. But reflect on this: 77 million Baby Boomers are set to retire, contributing predictable long term care costs of hundreds of billions to trillions over the next two or three decades. Shouldn't we moderate these costs too?"
Gott's recommendations to the President and Congress:
* First, include strong long term care provisions in the
legislative package you're now crafting. LTC is the unseen
elephant in the room.
* Offer substantial new tax incentives to help people afford
long term care insurance as a part of their overall health package.
* Offer substantial new tax incentives to companies that include
long term care options in their health benefit plans.
* For people who can't afford long term care premiums, modify
Medicaid to allow a choice of home care or assisted living in addition
to nursing-home care.
* Avoid creating a new form of public insurance covering long
term care. Instead, reform Medicaid to serve the same purpose in an
affordable manner.
* Avoid forcing people to buy long term care insurance.
Instead, rely on communication and persuasion. For example, add
a tax-deduction checkbox to the Federal income tax return; or create
a well-publicized Internet gateway to independent long term care
insurance advisors.
* To control costs, rely heavily on prevention in the long
term care arena, just as for shorter-term health needs. A great many
adult-onset diseases, ranging from diabetes to Alzheimer's, may be
avoided or minimized through proper diet, exercise, and stress control.
Consider incentives for individuals, insurers, and employers who promote
good health later and later in life, with shorter periods of down time.
"Now's the time to make your views known to the White House, your Senators, and Congressional representatives," says Gott. A simple way to do that is to submit a form or dial a phone number found at -- http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml. Gott also encourages citizens to write their favorite TV show to suggest a segment on LTC. "When something gets on Oprah, Good Morning America, The View, or 60 Minutes," she says, "Washington listens."
"If President Obama's three goals -- universal coverage, choice, and cost control -- are to be met," Gott says, "provision for long term care must be part of the legislative mix." Obama's goals, in his own words, are listed below, followed by Gott's reasoning.
1. Obama: "All Americans have to have quality, affordable healthcare."
Gott's response: "About 46 million Americans, close to 1 in 6, lack health insurance, but many times that number lack long term care insurance. Only about 9 million Americans have it -- out of a population of more than 300 million. And among those at greatest risk, 45 and older, more than 9 in 10 go uncovered. Does it make sense to protect ourselves from shorter-term illnesses or injuries, and neglect the longer-lasting ones?"
2. Obama: "Americans have to be able to choose their own doctor and their own plan."
Gott's response: "It's great for people to have options. For example, to stick with their employer's health plan, or opt for a public alternative (if one is legislated). But when it comes to long term care, choice today is very limited. The majority who lack LTC insurance face a bleak, narrow prospect. They must spend down their assets to pay their bills; to qualify for public assistance through Medicaid, they must in effect become poor; and then they're forced into an often overcrowded nursing home when they might prefer home care or assisted living."
3. Obama: "The rising cost of healthcare has to be brought down."
Gott's response: "The government estimates that healthcare could consume one fifth of the economy in ten years, up from one sixth today. Clearly that huge drag needs to be moderated. But reflect on this: 77 million Baby Boomers are set to retire, contributing predictable long term care costs of hundreds of billions to trillions over the next two or three decades. Shouldn't we moderate these costs too?"
Gott's recommendations to the President and Congress:
* First, include strong long term care provisions in the
legislative package you're now crafting. LTC is the unseen
elephant in the room.
* Offer substantial new tax incentives to help people afford
long term care insurance as a part of their overall health package.
* Offer substantial new tax incentives to companies that include
long term care options in their health benefit plans.
* For people who can't afford long term care premiums, modify
Medicaid to allow a choice of home care or assisted living in addition
to nursing-home care.
* Avoid creating a new form of public insurance covering long
term care. Instead, reform Medicaid to serve the same purpose in an
affordable manner.
* Avoid forcing people to buy long term care insurance.
Instead, rely on communication and persuasion. For example, add
a tax-deduction checkbox to the Federal income tax return; or create
a well-publicized Internet gateway to independent long term care
insurance advisors.
* To control costs, rely heavily on prevention in the long
term care arena, just as for shorter-term health needs. A great many
adult-onset diseases, ranging from diabetes to Alzheimer's, may be
avoided or minimized through proper diet, exercise, and stress control.
Consider incentives for individuals, insurers, and employers who promote
good health later and later in life, with shorter periods of down time.
"Now's the time to make your views known to the White House, your Senators, and Congressional representatives," says Gott. A simple way to do that is to submit a form or dial a phone number found at -- http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml. Gott also encourages citizens to write their favorite TV show to suggest a segment on LTC. "When something gets on Oprah, Good Morning America, The View, or 60 Minutes," she says, "Washington listens."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)