Sebelius Scandal.

And the scandal’s just keep on coming.

Fast & Furious
Benghazi
IRS
AP Phone Tapping

And the continued flagrant violations by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Back in the fall of 2012, Sebelius got in hot water for a violation of federal law restricting political activity by sitting government officials.

The violation of the Hatch Act, occurred as the Secretary addressed a group in North Carolina. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from using their official authority to influence an election. However it does allow partisan remarks made in a personal capacity.

The US Office of Special Counsel and the ethics office found that Sebelius made the speech in North Carolina in her official capacity as the nation’s top health official.

While this scandal isn’t as flashy and full of intrigue as the others, this is one scandal that refuses to go away.

GOP Widens Probe of Sebelius Fundraising for Enroll America: ”

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who obviously wields enormous power of the nation’s health care industry, has been aggressively seeking donations from the industry to fund a private non-profit, Enroll America. The non-profit is led by veterans of the Obama White House and campaigns and has appointed itself a leading role in implementing ObamaCare. In response, House GOP members have launched a wide probe into the questionable solicitations.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI) suggested Friday that Sebelius’s solicitation of donations from the health care industry raised a conflict of interest. He wrote ’HHS regulation of the health insurance industry will only grow under [healthcare reform], including by approving health insurers to participate in the exchanges.‘ 

Under ObamaCare, the federal government will have even greater regulatory control over health insurers and health care providers. The rules promulgated by HHS will have very real consequences on their business. A request from Sebelius to donate to a private non-profit does not exist in a vacuum. Some unknown amount of consideration would have to be paid to the ramifications of not donating.

Enroll America has promised a ‘campaign-like’ approach to promoting ObamaCare. Administration officials have said the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a leading funder of left-wing causes, has committed $10 million to the effort. Tax preparer H&R Block has pledged $500,000, according to Obama officials.

Upton and some of his colleagues sent letters to a host of leading insurers, asking for all communications regarding the fundraising by Sebelius. Most have been asked to provide a response by Monday.

    

(Via Breitbart Feed.)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Obamacare Explained.

Obamacare explained in terms everyone can understand. Conservatives offer up #ObamacareForDummies 

Obamacare

Obamacare (Photo credit: Shan213)

Enhanced by Zemanta

ObamaCare’s 7 Tax Hikes On Under $250,000-A-Year Earners – Forbes

See on Scoop.itPauls Content Curation

The Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare is constitutional, so let the tax hikes roll.

 

Seeing as my W2 for 2012 will be less than $5,000 maybe I’ll not be included in the tax hike.
See on www.forbes.com

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Antidote to the Affordable Care Act Is Non-Participation

Certainly this is one of a number of alternative solutions to PPACA. Seeing as we now know we can’t rely on the Government to think of their constituents first when it comes to health care.

The Antidote to the Affordable Care Act Is Non-Participation: ”

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld The Affordable Care Act the final piece of the puzzle is in place. We will begin the inevitable slide to the end of patient driven healthcare – individualized medicine led by independent doctors in consultation with their patients.

In order to understand where we are now and, more importantly, know what needs to be done to get out of this situation, it is imperative to understand how this started.

The rise of insurance companies has been carefully cultivated as early as 1971 when the Rand Corporation funded by The US Department of Health, Education and Welfare developed and ran a study known as the Rand health Insurance Experiment. The conclusions found that increasing patient costs via cost-sharing (making patients responsible for 25%, 50% or 95% of their medical costs through co-insurance, deductibles) with a maximum out-of-pocket expense of $1000 led to reduced ‘overutilization.’ but more importantly it led to reduced ‘appropriate or needed’ medical care. This was a concrete example of the detrimental effect that removal of the free market system would have on the delivery of healthcare to patients.

The theory that controlling patient behavior could control costs without consequences is fundamentally flawed. In 2012 we find ourselves in the position of patients now having higher out-of-pocket costs yet healthcare costs are continuing to spiral out of control. A rising number of patients now find themselves in the untenable position of having health insurance, but being unable to afford to use it. The Obamacare mandate exacerbates this by forcing Americans to buy into a system that has the power to deny recommended treatment based on what an insurance company deems ‘inappropriate or unnecessary.’ Treatment is not based on what is determined by the doctor and patient, but instead it is based on what actuaries deem to be most cost effective for the insurance company. The government placing punitive constraints on Americans based on the welfare of private corporate interest smacks of cronyism at best and fascism at worst.

Those who support ‘Medicare for all’ as the panacea either know nothing about how damaging government has been to the delivery of quality healthcare, or they simply don’t care. In short, those who think Obamacare is the advent of socialized medicine need to look closely at Medicare. It was part of the Social Security Amendment (HR6675) passed in 1965. It was set up as socialized medicine for senior citizens. Like Obamcare, it was crafted by bureaucrats, politicians and special interests without the input of patients or doctors. Under the guise of beneficence it forced working Americans to pay into it, conscripted doctors, and over the last forty-six years it has become bloated and wasteful promoting the concentration of money and power in the hands of favored players such as hospitals and insurance companies at the expense of physicians and patients.

One only needs to look at the state of medicine now to see this. Initial examples include: 1) the use of the diagnosis related group (DRG) which drives how much a hospital will be paid for a particular disease and therefore affects the length of time a Medicare patient can stay in the hospital; and 2) The Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC ) passed in 1997, an advisory panel advising Congress on what should be paid under Medicare. Due to the inevitable creeping of government control under Obamacare this has morphed into the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) which has the power to independently set Medicare payment and coverage guidelines with Congress only able to reverse the rules with a supermajority (courtesy of an amendment by Senator Harry Reid). The IPAB is essentially the rationing board (see page 18, 27). For those who think this only applies to Medicare don’t worry, it will eventually affect those with private insurance since private insurers routinely adopt Medicare guidelines for coverage and payment.

Where does this leave doctors and patients? If they don’t take a stand they will both be servants forced into a system that strips patient privacy and choice while forcing doctors to practice collectivist medicine sacrificing individualized patient care.

The Affordable Care Act forces doctors to ask themselves whether they will honor their sacred Hippocratic oath to do no harm or serve the interests of a government that mandates that cost control is more important than an individual’s right to determine the course of their healthcare. Dr. Curtis W. Caine beautifully sums up the argument for non-participation in a system that is unsustainable economically, and is both morally and ethically bankrupt.

It is important to recognize that the system will not work without doctors and patients. Instead of depending on Congress to repeal Obamacare, doctors and patients need to work together. These are some steps that doctors and patients can take to regain their freedom:

  1. Physicians can stop participating in Medicaid and Medicare.  Under current Medicare/Medicaid guidelines doctors are treated as guilty until proven innocent. Between physicians being being targeted for fraud, waste and abuse (a felony), and recovery audits which claw back money for services already rendered it makes it very difficult to practice good medicine while always looking over your shoulder.
  2. Physicians who plan to stop participating should initiate conversations with their patients about why they have chosen to put patient care above all else.
  3. Medicare patients who have physicians who no longer participate should have a conversation about costs. They will find that many physicians are willing to significantly discount services.
  4. Patients who have insurance with high deductibles and co-insurances should consider foregoing their insurance for routine visits and tests and go to independent physicians that offer fee-for-service. These doctors are likely to offer significantly discounted services. In addition, using free standing facilities (i.e., non hospital based labs, surgery centers, and radiology facilities) can offer significant discounts.
  5. If you are healthy, consider getting catastrophic coverage and add supplemental insurance (e.g., AFLAC). Most healthy patients see a doctor 1-2 times a year and the average yearly cost is about $400 dollars. Depending on where you live, the average yearly premium is ($2,200-$4500) for an individual and ($5000-$11,200) for a family with a further $3000 deductible and $5000 deductible respectively. For plans with no deductible costs of premiums can be significantly higher. It may be more advantageous to buy a low premium/high deductable policy and save money monthly towards your own private health savings account (for example saving $300 per month would mean $3600 to spend any way you wanted without the risk of denials).
  6. If you can’t get into a doctor and have a non life threatening problem consider going to an urgent care. Get to know the urgent care centers in your area. Many are now staffed by ER trained physicians and offer excellent care at a fraction of the price of going to a hospital based ER with a significantly shorter waiting time.

The healthcare system is broken, but The Affordable Care Act is not the solution. Instead of depending on Congress and waiting for an election to bring change, it is up both doctors and patients to work together to take back our power.

(Via Breitbart Feed.)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Penalizing you for not buying insurance is not a burden, but insisting on a free ID to vote IS a burden [Reader Post]

It’s amazing that such a simple act, that we all have to acquiesce to, often on a daily basis, is such a struggle for Statist Democrats to comprehend.

Penalizing you for not buying insurance is not a burden, but insisting on a free ID to vote IS a burden [Reader Post]: “

The Obamacare individual mandate demands that everyone have insurance coverage and penalizes those who do not carry insurance.

The fine for not purchasing health insurance under PPACA is $95 per person in 2014 (or 1% of taxable income, whichever is greater), $325 in 2015 (or 2%), and $695 in 2016 (or 2.5%). Thereafter, the mandate is indexed to inflation.

But hold on, there are exemptions:

In addition, many people are exempted from the mandate, such as those for whom premiums exceed 8 percent of household income. Hence, as premiums increase, more and more people will be exempted from the mandate.

So those exempted not only won’t pay the penalty, they will absolutely no incentive to spend a penny on health care coverage until they get sick and now they cannot be refused. Obamacare- it’s like going to a bank and making a $1000 withdrawal without ever opening an account. Not long ago this was called robbery.

Never mind that the architect of this disaster now says not only will it not save money, it’s going to cost a lot more:

In Wisconsin, Gruber reported that people purchasing insurance for themselves on the individual market would see, on average, premium increases of 30 percent by 2016, relative to what would have happened in the absence of Obamacare. In Minnesota, the law would increase premiums by 29 percent over the same period. Colorado was the least worst off, with premiums under the law rising by only 19 percent.

Never mind that none of the promises Obama made- keeping your plan, keeping your doctor, lowering premium costs- are worthless.

No, penalizing people for not having insurance is not a burden. Sheila-Jackson Lee, (D-Idiot), say it’s a positive thing. In Rep. Jackson-Lee’s view, however, this language does not actually impose a penalty. Not only that, but it’s like the civil rights struggle.

“I would make the argument, one, that instead it is an incentive to do right–that it is not penalizing because penalty is punishment,” Jackson-Lee told the Judiciary Committee.

“You’re not punished if you have health insurance, in fact. And so you are, in fact, incentivized to have health insurance, rather than take the negative which is to suggest that because we have a penalty you are being punished,” Rep. Jackson-Lee said.

“I am helping you. I am helping you not to have 26 percent un-insurance in the state of Texas. I’m helping children be insured. I’m helping diverse minorities be insured,” said Rep. Jackon-Lee. “And I know during the civil rights argument–even though we were arguing under the Constitution–there were many policy statements being made: Do we want to live in a nation that discriminates against a person because of the color of their skin? In addition to the constitutional argument, do we want to live in a nation where there are people being uninsured causing catastrophic costs unto the nation and others have to pay. I think that is the question that needs to be considered by the courts.”

And parking tickets? They’re a positive thing too.

“But I also need to say whether or not it is more an incentive than it is a punishment,” said Rep. Jackson-Lee. “I am more inspired by incentive. And I welcome it being a parking ticket. We get parking tickets all the time, and no one complains about being required to do the right thing.”

Eric Holder has blocked the South Carolina voter ID law on the basis that it unfairly burdens some potential voters:

The Justice Department on Friday rejected South Carolina’s law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, saying it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. It was the first voter ID law to be refused by the federal agency in nearly 20 years.

The Obama administration said South Carolina’s law didn’t meet the burden under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discriminatory practices preventing blacks from voting. Tens of thousands of minorities in South Carolina might not be able to cast ballots under South Carolina’s law because they don’t have the right photo ID, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said.

The Supreme Court has upheld a similar law in Indiana.

South Carolina ID’s would be provided at no cost and South Carolina has even offered to provide free transportation to obtain one.

The Carter-Baker Commission of 2005 said voter ID was no burden:

A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2005 chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. The panel recommended a national photo ID system and a campaign to register voters.

Want to see a side-splitter?

What’s wrong with showing identification when you vote? That’s an egregious civil rights violation if you ask the Obama Administration and liberal groups like the Center for American Progress, and the Advancement Project. So what happens if you show up at the front door of these groups without ID? Find out on this PJTV undercover investigation.

Click here to view the embedded video.

So it’s a burden to have to have an ID to vote, but it is not a burden to have to pay a penalty for not having insurance under Obamacare, and you can’t into the offices of those who say it’s a burden to have to have an ID without an ID.

You can’t make this stuff up.

If one person doesn’t need an ID to vote, than neither do I. And if I don’t need an ID to vote, then I don’t need one to board a plane or drive a car. It’s discriminatory. But that’s not this is all about. As wrote back in January, this election is all about fraud. Obama absolutely depends on it to win re-election. The more the left whines, the more dependent on fraud they are.

(Via Flopping Aces.)

Jared Polis, you’re wrong: Obamacare is a government takeover

This is one of the Best and Brightest elected from Colorado? Please, Coloradans, we can certainly do better than this as one of our elected officials.

Jared Polis, you’re wrong: Obamacare is a government takeover: “

With Colorado Rep. Jared Polis (D) facing reelection for District 2 against either Republican Eric Weissmann or Kevin Lundberg (& those from other parties), it’s worth examining Polis’s record on health care policy.

Polis claims that ObamaCare is not “a government takeover of the health care industry.  He’s wrong. The only way he could be correct is that if he argued that, even before ObamaCare, government had already taken over the industry.
Polis writes:

One of the biggest misunderstandings about this law is that it is actually a government takeover of the health care industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, instead of creating a new government program, the new law works within our current system of private health insurance by expanding opportunities for individuals to purchase private health insurance and increasing competition among private insurers.

He called insurance companies private insurers. This is absurd. First, they are so controlled by politicians and bureaucrats that a customer’s transactions with them are not at all private.  Second, government essentially prohibits “insurers” from selling real medical insurance.

As for how ObamaCare is a government takeover, Charles Krauthammer summarizes it well:

Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control — and presidential whim.

Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court — because never before has the already inflated Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen — should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

Cato‘s Michael Cannon destroys Polis’s denial that ObamaCare is a government takeover:

“It is irrelevant,” I wrote, “whether we describe medical resources (e.g., hospitals, employees) as ‘public’ or ‘private.’ What matters – what determines real as opposed to nominal ownership – is who controls the resources.” I detailed how making private health insurance compulsory – as ObamaCare does – “would give government as much control over the nation’s health care sector as a compulsory government program.”

I even quoted President Obama’s health adviser Jeanne Lambrew, who acknowledges, “the government role in socialized medicine systems ranges from complete government ownership and salaried facilities and providers to public financing of private insurance and providers” (emphasis added) – which is exactly how ObamaCare operates.

… Left-leaning columnist Michael Kinsley wrote of ObamaCare: “If the government requires insurers to accept all customers and charge all the same price, regulates all aspects of their marketing to make sure they aren’t discriminating, and then redistributes the profits to make sure that no company gets penalized unfairly, in what sense is the industry still ‘private’?”

Read Cannon’s whole article at Kaiser Health News: Just Call Me Liar Of The Year.

See also: Jared Polis (D-Boulder) wrong about Constitution & mandatory health coverage.

(Via Peoples Press Collective.)

First Read – House Dem compares GOP health care case to Nazi propaganda

Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, certainly didn’t learn anything from the recent events in Arizona.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/19/5878241-house-dem-compares-gop-health-care-case-to-nazi-propaganda

Three Stooges.

Screen shot 2010-04-01 at 6.07.25 PM.png


No, not Larry, Curly and Moe.

Al,
Alan
and Hank.

It’s amazing how Al and Alan can’t have a civil conversation with someone who has an opposing view from theirs. Hank must have missed some General Science Classes while in school.

Foodies and the Nanny State.

Screen shot 2010-03-31 at 5.19.15 PM.png

The creeping Nanny State is showing up in the food industry.

There are two news stories which show just how pervasive this government intrusion into our daily lives is becoming.

The first story comes on the heels of the recent Health Care Reform passed by the Social Democrats, and signed by President Obama.

“More than 200,000 fast food and other chain restaurants will have to include calorie counts on menus, menu boards and even drive-throughs.”

Since no one bothered to read the bill prior to voting on it, we find out about this mandate after the fact.

The second story is a continuation of the Nanny State’s fascination with Jamie Oliver and his desire for,

“…compulsory” food education in elementary schools and cooking in high school.”

The Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution Petition, is something to be avoided as we certainly have no need for more government intervention into what we as free individuals can and can’t eat.

It never was about Health Care Reform, Take 2.

Former Governor of Vermont and chairman of the Democratic National Committee, once again confirms that the recently passed Health Care Reform Bill, isn’t really about Health Care.

Thank you Social Democrats for being honest.

Switch to our mobile site