Health Care: To Reform a la Socialists Part Deux: We've Lost the First Battle, But NOT the War
- Login to post comments
The very big money health care groups that supported ObamaCare are having more misgivings about what they helped pass: Accountable Care Organizations. Seems the bill's language is too onerous for even these Pavlovian Obamanite health care administrators. Guess bending that old cost curve is a tad bit not what the Obama Administration wants us to believe.
See here for a primer on Accountable Care Organizations. After reading this you will probably know more about ACO's than your physician or the local hospital administrator.
Great info.
Is it too much to ask for individual citizens/groups/lawmakers to NOT support a bill that they "know not of"? It really irks me to hear about all these people coming out after the fact to say they changed their mind after they learned more about this bill --which is now the LAW. Uh, thanks a lot, people. You are a day late and dollar short. Cluebird: if a bill's language is a mixture of convoluted and vague, consider the possibility that it is BAD BILL.
Let's hope these "jumping on the ObamaCare bandwagon" folks can now hold onto the concept of thoroughly learning about something before raising their hands to indicate it's a great idea. And if they are not given the time to do so, then their hand should not be raised! It has been a mighty expensive lesson, and we all will have to pay the price.
[I still think the Supreme Court will nuke it].
Sadly GG the people supporting this Obamination of a bill cared not what was in it. They only wanted the power, the power to run the lives of others. And I feel the ones that are regretting their decision to vote on this are the ones who are looking to get re-elected. They ignored what their constituents were saying and let Pelosi and others strong arm them. Here is hoping that the memory of what they did does not dim come Election Day.
I do hope the Supreme Court denounces the entire bill as unconstitutional and administers a scathing response to Congress and the White House on overstepping their boundaries.
Yep, yep, yep, yep,yep and yep.
:)
Good point, Scoobs. Greed - for power and its attendant riches - moved these corporations to support ObamaCare. Who knows how much was read of the bill, let alone understood, by these corporations before they got onboard the Obama Disaster Train. How much were they "trusting" of the Obama Administration and minions in Congress and HHS to hammer out the sticky details left for after passage.
Hubris, greed, fear, dangerous ideology and more created this situation. Even if SCOTUS rules against ObamaCare, and it's not clear if or when they will examine this legislation in some capacity, you can count on these Marxists continuing to herd America in single payer, government run, communist-styled health care for America under the fallacy of health care as a "right". Once that determination is accepted, the train steams down the tracks to oblivion with a few stops but never a detour.
Massachusetts Medical Society Releases 2011 Study of Patient Access to Health Care
May 9, 2011
Waltham, Mass. -- May 9, 2011 -- A 2011 survey about patient access to health care in the Commonwealth shows more than half of primary care practices closed to new patients, longer wait times to get appointments with primary and specialty physicians, and significant variations in physician acceptance of government and government-related insurance products.
[...]
Alice Coombs, M.D., President of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said the survey results point out a critical characteristic of health care in the Commonwealth, one that physicians have known for some time.
“Massachusetts has made great strides in securing insurance coverage for its citizens,” said Dr. Coombs, “but insurance coverage doesn’t equal access to care. We still have much work to do to reduce wait times and widen access. This has important implications for health care cost control, as difficulty or delay with routine access to care leads people to seek other options, such as the emergency room, which is much more costly.”
Dr. Coombs cited a recent survey released in April by the American College of Emergency Physicians that showed emergency room usage in the state has risen, due in part to physician shortages.
[...]
-
Kathleen Sebelius’s outrageous claim that cancer patients would ‘die sooner’ under the GOP Medicare plan
By Glenn Kessler
Posted at 06:00 AM ET, 05/09/2011Secretary Sebelius made this eye-popping statement Thursday while testifying on Capitol Hill, after Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J) asked her a question about the Medicare plan advanced by House Republicans: “What might that cost shift and lack of guaranteed benefit mean for an oncology patient, a person with cancer? Give me an example, what it might do there.”
Her answer was strong stuff, suggesting that the GOP plan could cause people to “die sooner” if they had cancer and ran out of money. We have been critical of some of the ways Republicans have described the plan, but is this even remotely possible?
[...]
Sebelius’s statement sounded suspiciously like she was echoing a wrongheaded assertion by Bill Maher that the value of the premium support went for medical expenses, not an insurance policy. But her aides said that was not the case.
[...]
Sebelius could have chosen to highlight the trade-offs people might face, or questioned the vagueness of Ryan’s proposals to deal with people who can’t afford to pay their bills. Instead, she decided to present a highly inflammable comment as a statement of fact — that there was “no question” people would run out money “very quickly” and then they would “die sooner.” She should be ashamed.
I didn't necessarily want to post this as a new topic, so I posted it here.
We haven't heard from Dukakis in awhile, so, I thought I'd excerpt some of his recent remarks about health care.
-
Dukakis pushes health care for all
April 27, 2011PORTLAND - Former Democratic presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis kicked off his appearance Tuesday night at the University of New England with an apology.
"If I had beaten Bush One, you probably would never have heard of Bush Two," he said, referring to his 1988 election loss to Republican George H.W. Bush and his running mate, Dan Quayle.
[...]
"Good and affordable health care is the birthright of every American," Dukakis added.
Dukakis said he has been disturbed by the quality of the rhetoric over health care reform in Congress, saying it "has bothered the hell out of me."
He blamed President Obama and his administration for failing to refocus the health care debate to one key issue -- that every working family deserves to have health coverage.
"The president isn't saying this, the Democrats in Congress aren't saying it," he said.
"I think it would be a tragedy if we as a nation didn't commit ourselves to the proposition that all Americans are entitled to decent, affordable health care. It's one of the great moral questions of our time," Dukakis said.
[...]
I also believe we need decent, affordable health care. I just disagree with Dukakis about how we achieve it.
Interstate compacts offer new weapon against health care plan
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Governors who oppose the national health care act have no shortage of strategies they are willing to try—federal lawsuits aimed at overturning it, state statutes barring its implementation, an attempt at congressional repeal.
But another way around the controversial law may be emerging that, while it sounds far-fetched, theoretically could trump all others: a so-called interstate health care compact that would invoke a little-known clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Here’s how it would work: At least two states would agree to sign a joint agreement taking full responsibility for all health care policy within their borders. If the agreement is approved by Congress, the states that sign up would be given a block grant equal to the total of their federal health care funding for the prior year, including Medicare and Medicaid, with no strings attached.
[...]
This couldn’t happen right away. The concept has little chance of approval in the Democratic Senate, and, while scholars differ on the president’s role in these matters, it would likely need President Obama’s signature—which it wouldn’t get.
[...]
Still, interstate compacts do have a grounding in the U.S. Constitution, or at least in interpretations of the constitutional language. Article I, Section 10 provides that "no State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." It doesn’t expressly say that they can do it if Congress consents, but courts have read it to imply such permission hundreds of times.
[...]
-
What’s Wrong with IPAB, Part II: “Cost-Effectiveness” is Subjective
Avik Roy
Apr. 25 2011Last week, I asked a simple question: if government rationing of health care is the best way to reduce health expenditures, why is it that Britain, a country that aggressively rations care, has higher expenditure growth than the U.S.? Today, I continue with what will be a series of posts on the flaws of government rationing, as manifested by Obamacare’s Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB.
Advocates of IPAB say that IPAB will allow us to make evidence-based decisions as to whether certain drugs, procedures, and tests are “cost-effective.” But these advocates spend a lot less time considering the basic question: what is cost effectiveness? Who gets to decide what therapy is effective enough to deserve a certain price? Who decides what that price should be? In the rest of the economy, it’s individuals, through supply and demand, who decide what something should be worth, in the form of a market price. Not so in health care.
Let’s take a real-world example, from the country whose system IPAB is modeled after: Great Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE.
[...]
The author presents an interesting NICE example and asks some pertinent questions for advocates of IPAB.
-
Maine court dismisses Anthem rate-setting appeal
April 21, 2011PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s highest court has dismissed Anthem insurance company’s appeal of how the state insurance superintendent allowed for no profits in setting the company’s rates.
Anthem Health Plans of Maine appealed a lower court decision that affirmed the superintendent’s decision to reduce Anthem’s proposed 2009-2010 rate increase for individual health plans from 18.1 percent to 10.9 percent — a rate that contained a zero percent projected profit margin.
In a 5-2 ruling Thursday, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the year in which the challenged rates were effective has passed and new rates have gone into effect.
[...]
This will be interesting to follow. The two dissenting opinions said the court should have ruled on the core legal issue, because the rate review is an annual process.
The root of this is whether health care is a "right" or not. The state and judiciary appear to believe health care is a "right", therefore, government interference and control is obligatory to secure this "right".
Until this issue is resolved by SCOTUS, there will never be an end to the tug of war and the steady decline into government controlled medicine. Unfortunately, few politicians and businesses are willing to bring this seminal issue to the forefront as it is an electrified third rail to be used, abused, and demogogued by the Left.
Well, so much for it being fast-tracked so we can get a quicker definitive answer. The Va. request for it to be fast-tracked was turned down by the Supreme Court. I understand that from a judicial standpoint there are reasons for that, but it's still disappointing.
Why was the case was turned down? What are the pundits saying as the cause(s)?
The pundits are saying it's because the Highest Court is reluctant to make decisions before something has been implemented, presumably because if some other action stops it, there is then no need for them to wade in...the educated guess seems to be that the Supremes would get the case in about a year, right before the 2012 election. For me, other than the Supreme Court, the only likely way the law will be nixed is if a Republican wins in 2012, so it's frustrating -- the appeals process just seems like a big stall. But I guess the overall answer is that this is the way things are done; it's not easy to get the SC to fast-track a case due to possible harm caused with a slower decision.
So, either the case did not ask questions the Court found sufficient to become involved in, or, the Court is wussying out, maybe because of the pounding they took in the court of public opinion over the Gore/Bush Florida decisions.
ObamaCare already is law, already is being implemented, and already is causing harm. Waiting longer will only result in more harm. Lower courts have already found sufficient reason to declare ObamaCare bad juju. There are no other Courts to turn to for a final decision. The core issues will be unchanged a year from now. Waiting may be a hedge bet on their part to not PO one side or the other before the coming election might resolve the issue on its own, their hope being they won't get caught up in the crossfire (again).
There is a process whereby the Court determines if the case will be argued. Which Justices didn't want this case?
I agree -- and if they eventually rule this law as unconstitutional, it will be much more difficult to disentangle the mess. I see this as a much different type of issue than the Gore v. Bush weigh-in, so if that has anything to do with them rejecting this now (and that's not a stretch to imagine), that's weak. I would bet money that a very thorough, thoughtful and convincing argument was put forth on why this needs quicker resolution; very bright minds are involved with trying to expedite this.
It's a bummer. If we can't expedite an issue like this, it seems to me that something's wrong with the system.
Oh, and they rejected it "without comment."
One of the methods of granting hearing of a case involves a Justice's clerk reviewing and summarizing the lower court's case, then presenting this summary to his/her Justice for their approval to continue, which then requires at least four Justices to agree to hear the case.
If the clerk has a bias in their summary it might alter the initial Justice's opinion. Then there is the potential that the initial Justice makes a decision to kill further consideration based on ideology/bias. Do you think the two new Obama Leftists would green light a case that could torpedo their buddy's seminal legislation? Let's say that the initial Justice decides to forward the case to the other Justices for their vote. Does this decision to not accept the case mean there aren't 4 Justices to go against ObamaCare? That's not good.
So, I'm hoping the case that was considered did not have questions the Justices felt were appropriate for their opinion instead of a Justice torpedoing the case based on ideology or political allegiances, or, for the right questions asked but not enough support by the Justices to deconstruct ObamaCare.
I get where you're coming from, and you have great analytical skills. I'm discouraged by this rejection of it being expedited, but I'm not reading that it portends bad news later. Who knows, maybe I'm in denial. ^_^
I certainly am no expert on what cases would fit the bill for them to fast track (as this case seems ideal to me), but I read a few things today that indicated it may need to be more of a "life and limb" scenario that meets the requirement (in most instances) -- in that delayed justice would result in there being no need for certain cases to be heard at all (i.e., physical injury or death being the outcome if the case is not quickly heard).
A few other thoughts/arguments that are being put out there:
-- the Justice with potentially the most pressure on him with the healthcare case (I guess we all know who that would be) may not be eager to be the "deciding vote," which may actually be a good sign.
-- the Supreme Court is proceeding in a clean, clear and careful way for an issue of such magnitude, avoiding the appearance of a rush to judgment in following the letter of the law. Many consider the decision expected and neutral.
-- there's a chance that the multiple-state case (FL) is broader (legally and in terms of impact) and the farthest-reaching argument for them to accept for being expedited.
I don't know -- but it's kind of interesting to think about.
The recent Marist Poll, Poll: Best way to fight deficits: Raise taxes on the rich, April 18, 2011, found:
-
Americans clearly don't want the government to cut Medicare, the government health program for the elderly, or Medicaid, the program for the poor. Republicans in the House of Representatives voted last week to drastically restructure and reduce those programs, while Obama calls for trimming their costs but leaving them essentially intact.
Voters oppose cuts to those programs by 80-18 percent. Even among conservatives, only 29 percent supported cuts, and 68 percent opposed them.
I remember reading this article:
-
Analysis illustrates big gap between Medicare taxes and benefits
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Sunday, January 2, 2011; 9:07 PMYou paid your Medicare taxes all those years and want your money's worth: full benefits after you retire.
Nearly three out of five people said in a recent Associated Press-GfK poll that people who paid into the system deserve their full benefits - no cuts.
But an updated financial analysis shows that the amount workers have paid does not come close to covering the full value of the medical care they can expect to receive as retirees.
Consider an average-wage two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in Medicare payroll taxes during their careers. But they can expect to receive medical services - including prescriptions and hospital care - worth $355,000, or about three times what they put in.
The estimates by economists Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute think tank illustrate the huge disconnect between widely held perceptions and the numbers behind Medicare's shaky financing. Although Americans are worried about Medicare's long-term solvency, few realize the size of the gap.
[...]
That's an amazing disconnect, but as the article states:
-
Many workers may believe their Medicare payroll taxes are going for their own insurance after they retiree, but the money is actually used to pay the bills of seniors currently in the program.
If 80% of voters oppose cuts to Medicare, then I wonder, do they support increasing payroll taxes on themselves to actually fund it. Or do they just think taxing the rich, the Presidents solution to the problem, is the way to go. If, by a 2 to 1 margin, they think taxing the rich is the way to tackle the current deficit, I assume they think taxing the rich would also solve the Medicare funding problem.
I doubt taxing the rich is going to work though: Mr. Obama: Taxing the rich won't increase revenues
-
Massachusetts, pioneer of universal health care, now may try new approach to costs
April 15[...]
Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick (D) is trying to “shove,” as he put it, the health-care system here into a new era of cost control. He is proposing a new way of paying for care that would try to propel changes in the way it is delivered. It would give lump payments to teams of doctors responsible for almost all the care of a group of patients, with bonuses for saving money and dispensing high-caliber services that keep people healthy.
The governor’s plan — stirring an impassioned debate inside the gold-domed State House on Beacon Hill and among players in the state’s vaunted health-care industry — would make Massachusetts the only state to promote wholesale new arrangements of “integrated care.”
[...]
“We did access first,” said state Senate President Therese Murray (D). “Now we have to figure out how we afford that.”
With that question widely regarded here as unavoidable, “Massachusetts is where the feds are going to be” in a few years, predicted Robert Laszewski, a health industry consultant. “It’s a time machine.”
[...]
Welcome to the future.
I've always thought tackling costs first would have made care more affordable (or less expensive if you prefer), thereby making access easier, but what do I know.
And, the headline, pioneer of universal health care, I think should say, pioneer of universal health insurance.
Hatch, Camp Push for Transparency & Accountability with CMS Authority
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Washington, DC –Today, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, and U.S. Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee called on Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to provide in-depth data and a detailed analysis regarding the agency's decision to unilaterally execute an $8.3 billion Medicare Advantage quality bonus demonstration program (MA QBP), without any authority from Congress. The expenditure, in part, is an attempt to mask the Medicare Advantage cuts included in the $2.6 trillion health law. In a letter, the lawmakers asserted that Secretary Sebelius had abused her demonstration authority for political purposes and requested additional information to guarantee transparency and accountability within the system.
“Given the fact that without this demonstration, the new health care law would have taken current plans and choices away from many seniors in October of 2012 - right before the 2012 presidential elections – we believe that the MA QBP may represent a thinly veiled use of taxpayer dollars for political purposes,” the lawmakers wrote.
They continued, “While we remain willing to work with you to stop PPACA’s harmful effects on the seniors’ health care benefits, that effort must be coupled with an honest accounting to taxpayers on how their dollars are being spent.”
On background, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee has also expressed concerns about the abuse of demonstration authority in a letter it sent to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The text of the letter Hatch and Camp sent to Secretary Sebelius today can be found below:
[...]
-
Obama administration eases pain of Medicare cuts
Apr. 19, 2011WASHINGTON — Millions of seniors in popular private insurance plans offered through Medicare are getting a reprieve from some of the most controversial cuts in President Barack Obama's health care law.
The administration says it has decided to award quality bonuses to hundreds of Medicare Advantage plans rated just average. Under the new law, the quality bonuses were slated only for above-average plans. Critics call it a political move.
[...]
An administration official says the reason for the bonuses is quality improvement, not politics.
I'd like to see what criteria HHS used to determine "quality improvement". If HHS isn't transparent about this, then I hope Congress investigates.
This will be where the rubber meets the road. A decent article.
-
Defining essential benefits: How much is too much?
Of all the balancing acts the federal government will need to perform under the health system reform law, one of the most consequential may be deciding how to define the essential benefits that must be offered by all plans in state health insurance exchanges.
[...]
"The big issue that came out is the more generous you make the benefits, the more expensive it will be, and if it's more expensive, perhaps access to insurance will be less," said John Ball, MD, chair of the IOM committee. "Part of what we're looking at is how do you bring appropriate balance to generosity and affordability."
[...]
On the benefits question, the law mandates that the scope of the essential package be equivalent to that of a typical employer plan, as determined by HHS. The law also lays out 10 broad categories of services the package must cover.
"It's important to recognize that this list, by itself, is a fundamental change in the nature of insurance coverage in America," said Jonathan Gruber, PhD, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a board member of the state's health reform agency. "Never before have we mandated such a comprehensive set of insurance benefits be included in insurance coverage."
[...]
An example of how politics may play a role in determining the "essential health benefit" HHS is developing.
-
Giffords's office looks to expand brain-injury coverage
By Jason Millman - 04/07/11 04:20 PM ET[...]
Staffers for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) are trying to gain support for making TBI coverage part of the “essential health benefit” package that all insurers must offer by 2014 in order to participate in new state-run health exchanges created by the healthcare reform law.
[...]
Pascrell (D-N.J.), along with Giffords’s office, is circulating a letter to all members of Congress asking them to support requiring TBI coverage on the new health insurance exchanges.
[...]
The scope of the essential health benefits package, which will be determined by the Department of Health and Human Services, will play a huge role in the final cost of the Democrats’ 2010 healthcare law.
[...]
Pascrell, who co-founded the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force more than a decade ago, said he is sensitive to the cost of the essential benefits package, but TBI is a priority for him.
“I hope we’re not going to question the money that is necessary,” he said.
[...]
The article doesn't include an estimate of what the coverage might add to the cost of the essential benefits package.
Bring on the special interest groups and business lobbyists.
The difficult part is how to create enough elements of necessity to begin pruning the low hanging fruit in the private insurer market while balancing the final mix so as to not unduly burden the Feds with allowing too much care when they have ultimately inherited the whole shebang. Of course by then, the Feds will be the single payer, totalitarian health care provider and may hack away at medical necessity to suit the government's needs.
-
New Medicaid costs for Ohio expected to exceed $2B
Posted: 04/01/2011COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - State projections show Ohio's Medicaid enrollment will increase by about 970,000 and cost the state an additional $2.3 billion under the new federal health-care law.
[...]
I wonder if a waiver is in the cards for Ohio in the near future.
About 18% of Ohioans, 2.2 million, are currently on Medicaid. That number is projected to increase by 44% (970,000) according to projections -- 2,200,000 + 970,000 = 3,170,000 total projected Medicaid enrollees. Yet the cost of Medicaid is expected to only increase by $2.3 Billion, from $18 billion to ~$20 Billion.
- A 44% increase in enrollees only costs an approximate 10% more in spending?
Something's rotten, and it ain't just in Denmark.
Evan Bayh was interviewed by Laura Ingraham. Two articles about it (with video):
-
Evan Bayh Now Unsure If ObamaCare Reduces Health Costs
Bayh: Yeah, ObamaCare doesn’t address rising health-care costs
From the comment section of the last article about Bayh's involvement in passing the legislation:
-
Democrats Clinch Deal for Deciding Vote on Health Bill
[...]
Lawmakers who attended a private meeting between Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats at the White House on Tuesday pointed to remarks there by Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, as providing some new inspiration.
Mr. Bayh said that the health care measure was the kind of public policy he had come to Washington to work on, according to officials who attended the session, and that he did not want to see the satisfied looks on the faces of Republican leaders if they succeeded in blocking the measure.
[...]
-
Mass. discovers abuse of free health care pool
March 29, 2011BOSTON --The state inspector general says the program that pays for medical care for uninsured Massachusetts residents is spending millions of dollars on bogus claims for ineligible patients and for medically unnecessary procedures.
Inspector General Gregory Sullivan told the Boston Herald that the state's Uncompensated Care Pool spent $414 million on emergency health care for nearly 1 million claims in 2009.
That included $7 million for non-Massachusetts residents, including foreign nationals; $18 million for "medically unlikely" or "medically unnecessary" claims
[...]
The pool was established in 2006 by former Gov. Mitt Romney's health care reform law.
Romneycare. You'll have to pass it to see who can abuse it.
-
"Obama voids Bush conscience rule in favor of decades-old protections
The administration says the rule extended protections too far beyond the scope of abortion services. Meanwhile, House Republicans are pushing several anti-abortion bills."
The article is definitely from the Liberal perspective and does not sufficiently detail what will be different.
IMO, the biggest take home message for Republican Leadership should be that the Left do not recognize prior presidential orders or Congressional laws, and will change or nullify anything they desire if given the opportunity. Boehner et al need to drop the ridiculous notion that what Pelosi did with financing ObamaCare is inviolate.
-
This week: AARP faces grilling over reform support
By Healthwatch staff - 03/28/11 07:27 AM ETHouse Republicans will adopt a new approach to their investigations of the healthcare reform law this week with a public grilling of a powerful lobby group that supported the overhaul.
On Friday, two House Ways and Means subpanels will demand that AARP answer questions about its business practices and political endorsements. Republicans have accused the seniors’ lobby of endorsing healthcare reform to make more money from its endorsement of Medigap insurance policies.
[...]
Off the Hill, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners may decide during their weekend spring meeting — which runs through Tuesday — whether agents and brokers should be excluded from medical loss ratio calculations. The insurance sales representatives fear new federal rules limiting administrative spending will put them out of business.
[...]
-
Congressional Report Details AARP’s Financial Gain From Health Care Law
[...]
-
KEY FINDINGS
[...]
As a result of the new health care law, the Obama Administration estimates more than 7 million seniors will lose their current Medicare Advantage plans, resulting in a massive migration of seniors to Medigap plans. AARP is the nation’s leading provider of Medigap plans and has a contract in which AARP financially gains for every additional Medigap enrollee.
[...]
Under the midrange estimate and under their current contract, AARP’s financial gain from the health care law could exceed $1 billion during the next 10 years. This is because AARP will see their royalty payments increase as seniors are forced out of MA plans and buy AARP Medigap plans instead.
[...]
[...]
-
-
House Republicans seek audit of AARP
By Julian Pecquet - 04/08/11 05:23 PM ETRepublicans on the House Ways and Means Committee asked federal tax authorities Friday to look into AARP's finances.
[...]
AARP says all its revenue supports its mission of helping seniors.
And Democrats say Republicans are simply trying to punish the seniors' lobby for putting its considerable weight behind healthcare reform.
If all of its revenue supports helping seniors, why do they "profit" from seniors who buy Medigap insurance policies they endorse. I would assume those Medigap policies would be cheaper to seniors if the insurance companies didn't have to pay a commission to AARP.
I don't know if AARP did anything illegal, but they (and the Left) need to be exposed and ridiculed for being as much money grubbing as any big corporation, if not more, that the Left love to hate but are duplicitous when it comes to their "side".
AARP wants seniors' money. If they cared about the well-being of the elderly then they never would have supported a bill that guts $500 Billion from the care of the elderly. Except ObamaCare drives dollars into AARP's coffers via their MediGap insurance packages.
AARP is despicable but not necessarily involved in illegal operations.
Some articles I've read this past week.
-
Judicial Watch Sues Obama HHS for Records Related to Obamacare Propaganda Campaign
-
Judicial Watch's update on their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
-
By law, a response to Judicial Watch's FOIA request was due no later than February 14, 2011. However, to date, no documents have been produced. Moreover, HHS has failed to indicate when a response is forthcoming.
-
-
Their conclusion: "The first year of Obamacare has been marked by lies, secrecy, and contempt for the rule of law.
-
A glimpse of a future with Obamacare
Sally Pipes compares and critiques Romney Care with Obamacare.
Her conclusion: believe this — single payer is the logical and, indeed, likely extension of Romney-Obamacare.
-
John Goodman writes an interesting article.
Another good Goodwin health care article. If Jer is skimming this thread, I hope he reads it, especially the part about attempts to enroll people in Medicaid:
- "Interestingly, at both institutions, paid staffers make a heroic effort to enroll people in public programs -- working patient by patient, family by family right there in the emergency room. Yet they apparently fail more than half the time! After patients are admitted, staffers go from room to room, continuing with this bureaucratic exercise. But even among those in hospital beds, the failure-to-enroll rate is significant."
Efforts are actively made at various branch points in the health care system - federal, state, and local agencies, physician offices, and medical institutions - to enroll people in Medicaid or analogous state programs. It benefits the individual - they can now have ongoing care from the same individual or groups, the providers - known quantity of reimbursement, and the tax paying public - more or less apportioned to in-state citizens versus federally collected tax money from across the country (which means more or less in-state money to have for other projects).
I found this interesting. From across the pond:
-
PruHealth Finds the Nation Believes People Should Take More Responsibility for Their Own Health
LONDON, March 25, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- PruHealth has revealed new research that shows a third of Britons want people to pay for 'self-inflicted' health issues, two thirds believe the nation is unhealthier now than ten years ago and half expect the range and quality of NHS care to decline over the next few years.
Two thirds (66%)* of Britons believe the nation is unhealthier now than it was ten years ago, and taking more personal responsibility (69%) could be the best foot forward.
The latest findings from PruHealth, the insurer that rewards people for engaging in healthy behaviour, found respondents to be in line with Cameron's 'Big Society.' More than two thirds (69%) of the nation believe people should take more responsibility for their own health, while just 19 per cent feel it should lie on the shoulders of the NHS. Nearly a third of Britons (30%) even go as far as believing those with 'self-inflicted' health concerns caused by smoking, alcohol abuse or being overweight should pick up the bill themselves.
While half of respondents (50%) feel the NHS currently offers a good level of care, many believe the range (67%) and quality (49%) of services are likely to decrease in the next few years.
[...]
Vt. House Passes Single-Payer Health Care Bill
3:54 pm EDT March 24, 2011MONTPELIER, Vt. -- The Vermont House of Representatives has given final passage to a bill that would set the state on a path toward a single-payer health care system.
[...]
The measure puts off for two years a decision on how the new system would be paid for. Opponents said that leaves too much uncertainty and will hurt economic growth in the state.
Waivers? Already? This can't be good for Shumlin.
-
IBM makes its case on Vermont health care reform
Apr. 9, 2011MONTPELIER -- IBM officials said Friday they came away from a meeting with Gov. Peter Shumlin reassured they could agree on a way the state could move forward with planning for a more consolidated health care system while respecting IBM's desire to manage its own health benefit program.
John O'Kane, manager of government programs for IBM, has been vocal for weeks about the corporation's concerns with the pending health reform bill. He has said it would lead to a state takeover of health insurance and result in double taxation for businesses such as IBM that offer health benefits to their employees.
"We want to be able to manage our own health-care program and we have a track record of good success holding down health-care costs," O'Kane said. "If we are providing good health care, we shouldn't be asked to pay for it again" if the state moves to government financing of health insurance.
[...]
Businesses of all sizes have been buzzing in recent weeks over the health-reform legislation, already passed by the House, which would set the state on a course toward a consolidated health insurance system that would cover all Vermonters.
Many business people worry the bill commits the state to dramatic changes before answering critical questions such as how to pay for it and what the insurance benefit would be.
[...]
-
IBM Workers: Management Wrong On Health Care
April 15, 2011[...]
on Thursday, workers from IBM came to the Statehouse to said they like what Gov. Peter Shumlin and the Legislature are doing on health care reform.
Earl Mongeon of the Workers' Group Alliance at IBM said executives at the company never talked to workers before bringing the company's views before lawmakers.
I didn't realize that IBM management needed their employees permission to express their views of Vermont's single payer legislation.
As long as IBM swoons at the altar of Obama they will be OK. It's only a matter of figuring out the correct amount of bowing and scraping required.
The charlie foxtrot of ObamaCare and the emboldening of Leftist totalitarianism keeps revealing itself day by day.
Weiner is now petitioning for NYC to be given a waiver from the HC law.
Shoe-in, especially if he pulls this off.
SoL, if this poor excuse for a human being becomes Mayor I just may have to move out of the city.
And why not. Four states have been waived so far.
Obama's health care reform is unhealthy for hospitals
Trying to squeeze productivity gains out of hospitals will force many to close
By John D. Hartigan
March 19, 2011
Over the last few months, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has exempted a long list of unions and employers from an Affordable Care Act provision that would have made it too costly for them to continue some of their health care insurance plans. But, in sharp contrast, HHS apparently doesn't intend to do anything at all about a new health reform mandate that could eventually force hundreds of badly needed U.S. hospitals to shut their doors.
Many of these hospitals are already struggling to make ends meet because Medicare only reimburses them for 90 percent of what it costs them to take care of Medicare patients. But, instead of helping them out, this rule change does the opposite. In a misguided effort to pressure them to become more efficient, it arbitrarily assumes that they can achieve the same productivity savings as the economy at large and decrees that these hypothetical cost savings must be deducted from any Medicare reimbursements they receive after September.
[...]
To quote Medicare's own chief actuary, Richard Foster: "While such payment update reductions will create a strong incentive for providers to maximize productivity, it is doubtful that many will be able to improve their own productivity to the degree achieved by the economy at large. ... Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable. ... Simulations by the Office of the Actuary suggest roughly 15 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable within the ten year projection period."
[...]
ObamaCare proceeds from an assumption that hospitals have poorly maximized efficiencies. On the contrary, hospitals have made sequential changes in operations since the beginning of the end, 1983, with the introduction of DRG's (Diagnostic Related Groups) as reimbursement framework. At some point, loss of human assets and equipment (or being unable to upgrade due to economics) in order to maximize efficiencies while attempting to stay on budget, places the hospital into a difficult to escape financial tailspin. Not helping is continued reduction in reimbursement for care given.
Missing from ObamaCare is pressure to control costs incurred by hospitals from their vendors as well as staffing (excluding physicians). The government mandates computerization but is blind to unregulated (except by the market) pricing. Workers need increases in pay otherwise they will go elsewhere for work, or, like nursing, won't even enter into the job field. Yet reimbursement continues to decline overall. Without concomitant control of costs incurred by vendors and staffing, government brews a recipe for disaster when cost containment is one sided. I am not advocating government go Communist and fix pricing in the market, just highlighting why their strategy is doomed to fail in this particular area.
Even in the hospital-rich environment of Cleveland, a place already experienced in hospital closings in recent times, a 15% reduction of hospitals for the area will have grave consequences for the health and lives of residents. These are the lowered expectations that must be readjusted to under increasing government control and manipulation of our health care system. In a couple of generations no one will be the wiser or expecting more, at least that's what the Left's depending on.
- Login to post comments
New Study Finds the Start Up Costs of Establishing an ACO to be Significant
May 13th 2011
Today the American Hospital Association (AHA) released a study that looks at the start-up investment required to establish and sustain an Accountable Care Organization (ACO). The study found that the costs of the necessary elements to successfully manage the care of a defined population is considerably higher – $11.6 to $26.1 million – than the $1.8 million estimated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in its proposed rule for start-up and one year of ongoing operations. The AHA sent a letter to Donald Berwick, Administrator of CMS, to highlight these findings.
“CMS’ estimate falls short of the mark,” said Rich Umbdenstock, president and CEO of the AHA. “The shared savings rate with ACOs should be adjusted to reflect these costs in order to encourage and enable participation in this important program.”
[...]
Why am I not surprised.