Health Care

[pattygreen 5]

Remember Nancy Pelosi's now infamous statement, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"? Now that ObamaCare is law, Americans are expressing "buyer's remorse" at a quickly increasing rate.

Here are some of the "prizes" we are beginning to discover inside ObamaCare:

Prize #1: Senior care has been gutted.

Jim Martin, chairman of the 60 Plus Association, laments that ObamaCare will lead to HUGE cuts in services for seniors, especially those on Medicare. The changes, he says, are so extensive that they will inevitably lead to rationing of care.

"You've got a report coming out from the New

England Journal of Medicine that nearly 45

percent of doctors may start refusing to take

Medicare patients. With fewer doctors and

fewer funds, that means more people in line,

and that means if you have to have some kind

of emergency operation or test done, you're

not going to get it. That's why seniors are

upset," Martin says.

Reports from other seniors' advocacy groups are similar - with the notable exception of AARP. That iconic organization betrayed their members' interests and supported ObamaCare because of the enormous financial windfall they expect to receive in their insurance business.

We should stand up for American seniors, who above all others deserve coverage from a Medicare system they paid into throughout their working years.

[pattygreen 5]

Prize #2: Bernie Madoff-style accounting.

One of the most painful revelations about ObamaCare is coming through its unstated costs - the realities of budgeting and implementing this monstrous bill over many years to come. The bill's advertised price tag of one trillion dollars was sheer fantasy. ObamaCare's financial structure is based on a Ponzi Scheme of

collecting taxes for 10 years while only offering 6 years

of service. In the post-passage light of day, realistic

cost estimates now range from $2.4 trillion to unfathomably high numbers because the 2,700 page bill is filled with loopholes that are subject to interpretation.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has repeatedly said that

ObamaCare could bankrupt our nation. Recently,

Massachusetts State Treasurer Tim Cahill, who

oversees the funding for the only state health

care system comparable to ObamaCare,issued the same prognosis.

There are literally scores of new bureaucracies listed in

the pages of the President's final bill. For instance, 16,500 unbudgeted new IRS Agents will have to be hired. One thing is for sure: The ancillary costs of this government takeover will far exceed those projected by ObamaCare's architects.

[pattygreen 5]

Prize #3: Americans will pay higher prices for...everything.

According to the Wall Street Journal, ObamaCare's cost to American corporations could reach $14 billion this year alone. Companies like Prudential, Verizon, AT&T, John Deere, 3M, Caterpillar, Valero Energy and others have already announced the anticipated additional costs - and they are staggering.

Of course, American citizens will ultimately pay the price forthese rising costs, even for non-medical products and services.

[pattygreen 5]

Prize #4: States are left holding the bag.

Fourteen states' attorneys general so far have filed lawsuits against ObamaCare because it is unconstitutional and their budgets are squarely in the crosshairs. By 2014, for instance, states will be required to pay fully half of the administrative costs that result from the expansion of Medicaid under the plan.

These are just a few of the myriad "prizes" in ObamaCare that are coming to light. The actual cost of the 2,700-page bill no one was allowed time to read before it was forced through Congress is yet to be determined. One thing is certain: There will be many more painful "discoveries" about ObamaCare going forward.

[pattygreen 5]

Henry Waxman, the congressional bully.

Those who find fault with ObamaCare must be very careful about how they express their opinion. Apparently, ANY negative report on ObamaCare is going to be squelched!House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) sent letters to the CEO's of companies reporting huge additional costs from ObamaCare, demanding all documents supporting their findings. Next, he wants to see them on Capitol Hill for congressional hearings!

This bullying is nothing less than censorship

and suppression - the very Chicago-style politics

that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis used to get

their healthcare "reform" bill passed. It is

not to be tolerated!

[pattygreen 5]

The federal government is forcing Americans to buy a product against our will - or face a substantial penalty. THIS MANDATE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The facts are clear: Congress lacks the authority

to force the American people into making insurance purchases.

Period.

[LeighaMason 19]

Remember Nancy Pelosi's now infamous statement, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"? Now that ObamaCare is law, Americans are expressing "buyer's remorse" at a quickly increasing rate.

Once again you start you post with an untruth, you chop a sentence just to try and make it say something different.The quote is:

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. "

Pelosi Remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties

Where are the numbers to support this buyers remorse you speak of?

Just another blanket statement repeated off Fox News.

Who is this 60+ Association?

The AARP has also criticized the 60 Plus Association as being partisan because its issues and causes mirror those of only one of the two major United States parties, the Republicans. A final criticism leveled by the AARP is that because it lists no dues-paying members and receives the majority of its contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, the group is simply a front organization for the pharmaceutical industry.

(Wikipedia)

So why would I be impressed by what a paid mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical industry says about the health care bill? Its going to cost them money, so they want you to not like it. It takes away their cash cow!

Patty, I have a news flash for you, people will lie to make money, therefor it is necessary to think for yourself, when someone says or writes something you should think "Why would they say that?" And if the answer is because they are paid to, maybe you should disregard that statement.

[LeighaMason 19]

Henry Waxman, the congressional bully.

Those who find fault with ObamaCare must be very careful about how they express their opinion. Apparently, ANY negative report on ObamaCare is going to be squelched!House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) sent letters to the CEO's of companies reporting huge additional costs from ObamaCare, demanding all documents supporting their findings. Next, he wants to see them on Capitol Hill for congressional hearings!

This bullying is nothing less than censorship

and suppression - the very Chicago-style politics

that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis used to get

their health care "reform" bill passed. It is

not to be tolerated!

How is asking them to substantiate their claims "censorship and suppression"? If you release these negative numbers to the press reporting "huge additional costs" you should be prepared to back those numbers up. You should be happy to show how these "huge additional costs" are affecting your company, unless its just a lie and now you have to say it under oath. Now you got a problem.....

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The federal government is forcing Americans to buy a product against our will - or face a substantial penalty. THIS MANDATE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The facts are clear: Congress lacks the authority

to force the American people into making insurance purchases.

Period.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

Corbett's frivolous lawsuit: The attorney general's attack on health reform is costly politics

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

By Gary L. Kaplan

Let's assume Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett was not in the midst of an election campaign. And let's ignore the irony of his decision to spend taxpayer funds on a Republican Party challenge to health care reform that was filed within hours of the most recent bonusgate convictions. Standing alone, Mr. Corbett's decision to join in a frivolous lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health care reform legislation, while failing to offer any constructive alternatives, should raise serious doubts about the leadership he would offer as governor.

Notwithstanding partisan posturing, the federal health care reform is neither the end of civilization nor unconstitutional. It is not even a close question.

Last week, for example, one law school tried to hold a debate among "distinguished law faculty" on the constitutionality of the law. Although the law school "tried very hard" to get a professor who would argue that the law is unconstitutional, it couldn't find one. (The Wall Street Journal had better luck: It recently published an article with four different views of the lawsuit, including one arguing it has merit. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the pro-lawsuit piece was written by two lawyers who were paid to file the dubious suit.)

Meanwhile, respected conservative legal scholars have derided the lawsuit. Charles Fried, former solicitor general for President Ronald Reagan and Harvard professor, has called the case "truly silly" and suggested that its proponents are "deeply ignorant or just grandstanding in a preposterous way."

Mr. Corbett's lawsuit makes three arguments.

First, the suit claims the federal government cannot force the states "to assume costs they cannot afford, and by requiring them to establish health insurance exchanges." In fact, the law does not "force" the states to do anything. A state could completely avoid costs of reform by refusing to accept federal Medicaid money. But if the state wants the money, it has to live with any strings attached to it. In 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a nearly identical challenge to a part of the Social Security Act and has made numerous similar rulings since that time. Strike one.

Second, the lawsuit claims that the individual mandate, which would impose a tax penalty on individuals who fail to obtain health insurance, is unconstitutional because the Constitution expressly permits only census-based taxes. Also since the 1930s, however, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal government has the power to regulate individual conduct, including through tax incentives, to promote the general welfare. A tax intended to prevent financial implosion of the national health care system meets this test. Strike two.

Third, to overcome Congress's undoubted power to regulate interstate commerce, the suit argues that "inactivity," such as a failure to purchase health insurance, cannot "have any substantial effect on commerce." Both factually and legally, this argument is absurd.

When it comes to health care, no one is an island. When healthy people -- that is, people who are healthy today -- forgo insurance, they increase the costs to everyone else. And those costs are made even higher if those healthy people (as is often the case) turn out not to be so healthy after all or end up needing emergency care.

Even Republicans agree that health insurers should be prohibited from rejecting applicants based on pre-existing conditions (or cutting off health benefits to sick plan members). Without a private mandate as part of such plainly constitutional regulation, however, only sick people would get insurance and the cost of coverage would quickly outstrip available funds. For this reason, numerous Republican proposals over the past 40 years, including those of Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney, have included individual mandates as a counterweight to insurance reform.

Of course, an insurance mandate would not be necessary in a "single-payer" or "socialized" health system, but it is hard to imagine that Mr. Corbett and his cohorts would find that preferable. Strike three.

Maybe Mr. Corbett could be excused for spending public funds on the lawsuit if he had a better plan. He doesn't. Mr. Corbett's statement on the subject is that he "believes that we must start with medical malpractice reform and work to strengthen the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs."

What policies? Hoping no one gets sick? When it comes to health care reform and governing, wishful thinking is a poor substitute for leadership.

Meanwhile, malpractice reform is not health care reform. Frivolous lawsuits affect all elements of society and health care is no different. Notably, the health reform bill includes $50 million for the states "to evaluate alternatives to current medical tort litigation." To benefit from this funding, Pennsylvania's leaders would need to develop a reasonable proposal for lawsuit reform. But apparently, Mr. Corbett's vision of leadership instead is simply to spill public funds into the nation's already overflowing reservoir of wasteful litigation.

Gary L. Kaplan is a Pittsburgh attorney and an adjunct faculty member in Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz School (kaplan@dkykb.com). He blogs on legal affairs at ManagingDisputes.com.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[tdslf1 0]

As I sated before, PG loves to post HALF truths trying to make them fly as truth. And et again I say please back up facts with something that adds to the conversation instead of junk that has to be fact checked every time. Waste of everybodies time when you don't do that.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Henry Waxman, the congressional bully.

Those who find fault with ObamaCare must be very careful about how they express their opinion. Apparently, ANY negative report on ObamaCare is going to be squelched!House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) sent letters to the CEO's of companies reporting huge additional costs from ObamaCare, demanding all documents supporting their findings. Next, he wants to see them on Capitol Hill for congressional hearings!

This bullying is nothing less than censorship

and suppression - the very Chicago-style politics

that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis used to get

their healthcare "reform" bill passed. It is

not to be tolerated!

Oh, cries of foul!! :thumbdown: Obviously those on the right, conservatives and republicans are not used to being asked to provide proof for their allegations (or more often, lies). They got away with it under bush. Well, there's a new sheriff in town. Get used to it. :thumbup:

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Have you also noticed that since Obama was elected suddenly everyone on the right is an expert on the constitution and our founding fathers?

This would be funny if not so pathetic. These self-proclaimed "experts" couldn't name 3 founding fathers with a Texas history book and a flashlight.:thumbup: They can't even spell correctly on their homeschool protest signs.

You know the saying "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Well, these fools are shouting it at the top of their lungs.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Prize #1: Senior care has been gutted.

Jim Martin, chairman of the 60 Plus Association, laments that ObamaCare will lead to HUGE cuts in services for seniors, especially those on Medicare. The changes, he says, are so extensive that they will inevitably lead to rationing of care.

"You've got a report coming out from the New

England Journal of Medicine that nearly 45

percent of doctors may start refusing to take

Medicare patients.

Yeah, because these are the doctors who will no longer be able to overcharge for medicare, a huge problem and costly to us taxpayers.

My republican state senator had a town hall meeting. Needless to say she was opposed to healthcare reform. Turns out her husband is a doctor who ONLY takes medicare patients. Now, I wonder why that is? Hmmm. Well, no wonder they didn't want healthcare reform. Now, his payments will be more in line with his treatment. The cash cow is gone.

I would expect those who claim to care about spending would support getting rid of waste and fraud in ANY government program. And by the way, since when did republicans start to care about medicare? They've always wanted to get rid of it.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[BJean 16]

Ain't it the truth! They can't have it both ways. They're as transparent as a glass fishbowl.

[LeighaMason 19]

OK, here is a typical republican thing for you, I play cards on Tuesday afternoon with a bunch of guys, most of whom are republicans because they should be, (top 5% tax bracket) so yesterday one of them is sitting there gripping about welfare and how we should just stop all those programs, blah, blah, blah...

So I asked him "Aren't most of your rent houses on Section 8?" (Rent is paid directly from HUD to him)

You could have heard a pin drop.....then the laughing started. He conceded my point.