Site Content
Fraud, Lies and Democrats
http://personalliberty.com/architects-obamacare-deserve-prison/
Democraps’ Fraud: Act or course of deception, an intentional concealment, omission, or perversion of truth… Willful fraud is a criminal offense which calls for severe penalties, and its prosecution and punishment (like that of a murder) is not bound by the statute of limitations. Now let’s take a look at how Obamacare was sold. Almost one year ago, I asked right here at Personal Liberty: “Is President Obama Too Big to Jail?” I was referring primarily to the crime of fraud and misrepresentation used by Obama and his socialist cabal to sell Obamacare. What any U.S. prosecutor could tell you is the architect of the crime (Gruber) just confessed to the crime on video. This is an ironclad case of fraud. Now use his words to take down the entire criminal enterprise. If Obama had truthfully admitted, “This is a massive wealth redistribution scheme,” who would have supported it? If Obama had truthfully admitted, “If you like your insurance, there’s a darn good chance you’ll lose it,” who would have supported it? Or “If you like your doctor, too bad. You’re going to need to find another.” Or “If you like your price for health insurance, too bad. Because your price is going to double or triple.” If Obama had truthfully admitted any of that, he never could have sold Obamacare to the American public. So he had to lie, deceive and misrepresent. That’s the definition of fraud. That’s exactly why Trudeau and Madoff are in prison. But the selling of Obamacare was far more serious than typical consumer fraud. Madoff is in prison for life. Trudeau is away for 10 years. They simply advertised or promoted. Victims willingly came to them or bought from them of their own free will. Yet that’s still (of course) fraud because victims willingly handed over their money based on lies and deception. But Obama didn’t just lie and misrepresent. No one had “free will.” Obama forced every American with the force of government and IRS fines to buy his fraudulent product. That’s more like a violent crime. That’s armed robbery. That’s a much more serious crime. It’s time to put the architects and salesmen of Obamacare in prison. Trudeau cost about 1 million consumers a paltry $30 each. No one’s life was ruined. Madoff cost a few thousand wealthy investors a few billion dollars. Some lives were ruined, but the numbers are small. Obamacare is the biggest fraud in world history. Over time, it could cost American consumers trillions of dollars in new taxes, higher premiums, deductibles, co-pays or, in the case of victims who are terminally ill and lose their insurance altogether, million-dollar bills. For a few victims who have terminal cancer, the stress of losing their insurance coverage or doctor may cost them their lives. And how about the job losses and downgrades from full-time to part-time work for millions of American employees? Trudeau and Madoff damaged a few personal economies. Obama & his Democraps’ fraud damaged the entire U.S. economy. What kind of prison sentence do you get for that? Now remember the second half of the definition of fraud straight from the dictionary: Willful fraud is a criminal offense which calls for severe penalties, and its prosecution and punishment (like that of a murder) is not bound by the statute of limitations. The words on video of Gruber prove this was “willful” fraud.
http://conservativevideos.com/obama-2006-stolen-ideas-liberally-jonathan-gruber/ At a Brookings Institution meeting in 2006, Obama praised the policy accomplishments of the man who would later imperil the Affordable Care Act through repeated comments belittling the intelligence of American voters. In the video, Obama calls Gruber one of “the brightest minds from academia and policy circles,” claiming he’s one of a small group of experts from whom Obama’s “stolen ideas liberally.”
http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/voters-stupid-prof-says-obama-is-different/ DEMOCRATS the party of LIES, DECEPTION, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, INCOMPETENCE: Yet another video has surfaced of Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jonathan Gruber, who was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for consulting on Obamacare and has stated that he counted on the “stupidity” of Americans for the law to be adopted, but this one shows he puts Barack Obama in a different league. “This is exactly what conservatives have been saying … What we’re hearing now is the true voice of liberal arrogance. They believe this. They believe that the voters are stupid as he said. And they believe they know the right way, they have to lead the masses to the promised land and they can only do it by deception. And that’s what he said openly.” Krauthammer said the attitude was, “‘We wanted to get the bill and we didn’t care how we did it, so we lied about everything.’” “As Gruber said, had they known that, it never would have passed. They lied about every aspect of this,” Krauthammer said. “But they got away with it.” In the first video that appeared, Gruber said, “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If the CBO scores the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. …” He continued to discuss the lack of transparency, which was a “huge political advantage.” “Basically you now call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever that was really really critical to get the thing to pass.” In a second video that surfaced he was discussing how the costs were going to be imposed on Americans, and said, “The American voters are too stupid to understand.” Then in another, he discussed the “lack of economic understanding” of Americans
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/12/12/obama-is-getting-sued-both-the-plantiff-and-the-reason-are-full-of-irony/ A major New York City Union is suing Obama (he is specifically named as a defendant) and his regime, claiming that Obamacare will bankrupt its healthcare fund. A police union, the Correction Officers Benevolent Association (COBA), is claiming that Obamacare has caused its healthcare costs to skyrocket, and is asking for an exemption from the highly unpopular Democrat Party passed law. Appearing on FOX News’ “The Real Story” with Gretchen Carlson on Thursday, COBA President Norman Seabrook said that not only is Obamacare bankrupting unions, but will eventually bankrupt the City of New York. “It’s sort of like disingenuous of the administration, not to at least take a look at what they’re about to do — bankrupting not only unions, but eventually the City of New York, under Obamacare,” Seabrook told Carlson. “You say, that you, as a union, will go broke,” Carlson reflected. “Absolutely. There are other unions in the city that have already went broke under Obamacare,” Seabrook stated. Ironically, unions continue to overwhelmingly support almost exclusively Democrat politicians — the same ones who, according to Seabrook, are bankrupting some unions. http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/the-general-welfare-clause-explained-by-the-framers-of-the-constitution The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” – Federalist No. 45 “If the clause, ‘to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,’ is construed to be an independent and substantive grant of power, it not only renders wholly unimportant and unnecessary the subsequent enumeration of specific powers; but it plainly extends far beyond them, and creates a general authority in congress to pass all laws, which they may deem for the common defence or general welfare.1 Under such circumstances, the constitution would practically create an unlimited national government. The enumerated powers would tend to embarrassment and confusion; since they would only give rise to doubts, as to the true extent of the general power, or of the enumerated powers.” – Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Volume II, Chapter XIV The Powers of Congress – Taxes, Section 906, pp. 369-370 (1833)
Site Content
Additional Information
Since 1996, employer-provided plans have been barred from dropping or excluding anyone based on a pre-existing condition. Nor does Medicare or Medicaid. The pre-existing conditions problem affects about 2 million people in the individual market. The best options for these sick people are being closed because of ObamaCare. In 35 states, they currently get coverage through high-risk pools, where premiums are subsidized to help keep them within reach. Most of these pools have long waiting lists. But high-risk pools must close on Dec. 31, 2013, or shortly after, because the Affordable Care Act directs ill patients to enroll in ObamaCare exchange plans. The problem is, most exchange plans severely limit their choice of hospitals and doctors, excluding academic hospitals and specialty cancer centers. State insurance commissioners are scrambling to delay closing the high-risk pools. The high-risk pools are an honest way to subsidize care for the sick, and they've worked for twenty-five years. ObamaCare replaces them with a devious method — luring young, healthy people into exchange plans at premiums far higher than their own cost of care to offset the cost of the sick in the same pool. Exchange plans are a rip-off for the young and a dangerous downgrade for the sick. The uninsured — the group the president claimed his law was enacted to help — also are left out in the cold. According to the Congressional Budget Office and the American Enterprise Institute, at least half of those who lose coverage gain it again within 12 months, generally because of a new job. A temporary problem needs a temporary fix. People who are between jobs need temporary help paying what are known as COBRA premiums, to maintain their on-the-job health insurance. In 2009, Congress enacted a federal subsidy that paid 65% of COBRA for nine months, eventually extending it to 18 months. According to a U.S. Treasury analysis, that increased COBRA participation by almost 50%. A heftier subsidy (85%) for a shorter period would likely yield bigger results. Unfortunately, ObamaCare replaces this sensible fix with a grossly inferior one: Medicaid. If you lose your income, the exchanges automatically dump you into Medicaid. That means losing private coverage and access to your doctors. COBRA cost $2 billion in 2009, about $2,000 per recipient. Funding the high-risk pools would cost $22 billion a year ($11,000 per enrollee, according to the national association of these pools). That's less than the $26 billion budgeted for the unpopular and still empty exchanges in 2014. Here's another piece of damage control: Unless Congress acts, starting Jan. 1, 2014, group health plans must provide a costly one-size-fits-all benefit package defined by Washington. Employers are expected to start dropping coverage, leaving millions to be dumped into Medicaid or Medicaid-like exchange plans. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/120613-682150-if-youre-already-sick-obamacare-clobbers-you.htm#ixzz2n0xwdZCo Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Site Content
Additional Information
back during the 2008 campaign, Obama argued strenuously against the individual mandate. In a debate in South Carolina, he said: “A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. … But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can’t afford it. And that’s why my plan emphasises lowering costs.”
In February 2008, he said that you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home:
Obama felt so strongly about the issue that he even cut an ad attacking Clinton for her support of the individual mandate. "Hillary Clinton's attacking, but what's she not telling you about her health care plan?" the April 2008 ad asked. "It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don't."
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/mkibbe/obamas-mandate-is-doomed?source=MAR29
Justice Anthony Kennedy "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" and "So the Federal government says everybody has to join an exercise club?" Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli."
Chief Justice John Roberts queried: "So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?" Justice Samuel Alito jabbed: "All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, 'You know what you're doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you're going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don't have burial insurance and you haven't saved money for it, you're going to shift the cost to somebody else'. Isn't that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?".
Site Content
Additional Information
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/8/carson-better-than-obamacare/
A major problem is that many people in our entitlement society see nothing wrong with forcing others to provide for their desires. In a free and open society, anyone should be able to purchase anything they want that is legal. It really should be no one else’s business. Common sense dictates, however, that it immediately becomes my business if I’m being forced to pay for it. Wouldn’t it be fairer and make more sense for people wanting some form of birth control to pay for it themselves? This is exactly what would happen if everyone had access to their own health savings account. A woman and her health care provider would decide on a birth-control method, and the cost would be deducted from her account with no involvement of anyone else in any way. It’s so simple, and upholds privacy and freedom. Health savings accounts can be funded in a variety of different ways and give people total control of where, how and with whom they wish to spend their health care dollars. Most people will want to get the biggest bang for the buck and will independently seek out both value and quality. That, in turn, will bring all aspects of medicine into the free-market economic model, thus automatically having an ameliorating effect on pricing transparency and quality of outcomes. Many corporations and communities already have very positive experiences with health savings accounts. Those experiences could be further enhanced by allowing family members to shift the money in their accounts among themselves. For instance, if a family member was $500 short for a procedure or test, another family member could provide the money by authorizing its deduction from his account. This provides a whole other level of flexibility to the concept of health savings. The overwhelming majority of encounters with the medical world could be handled through this type of system, eliminating bureaucratic delays and frustration. The 5 percent of patients with complex pre-existing or acquired maladies would need to be taken care of through a different system, similar to Medicare and Medicaid, but informed by the many mistakes in those programs from which we can learn. Even this kind of system should have elements of personal responsibility woven into it. The bottom line: Health care for all of our citizens is the responsibility of a compassionate society and is well within our grasp if we don’t make it into a political football. The majority of Americans are unhappy with Obamacare and would prefer something that is simple, effective and under their own control. We do not have to settle for something imposed upon us Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/8/carson-better-than-obamacare/#ixzz36yvPomjX
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Site Content
Additional Information
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012, though in each case for different reasons. The actuarial deficit in the Medicare Hospital Insurance program increased primarily because the Trustees incorporated recommendations of the 2010-11 Medicare Technical Panel that long-run health cost growth rate assumptions be somewhat increased. The actuarial deficit in Social Security increased largely because of the incorporation of updated economic data and assumptions. Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.
Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/483646/200907291749/History-Of-Govt-Run-Health-Care-Is-A-Study-In-Skyrocketing-Costs.aspx In 1968 total spending by the federal government was $178.1 billion dollars. Forty years later in 2007, total spending had risen to $2,728.9 billion dollars. So the budget of the U.S. increased in dollar terms 15.3 times in that 40-year span.But all programs did not rise in unison. Some rose more, others less. Outlays for Social Security rose from $23.3 billion in 1968 to $581.4 billion in 2007, an increase of 25 times. So Social Security drove the budget higher at a substantially faster rate than the budget rose as a whole.ObamaCare plans to expand the government's role in insuring the American people. What kind of impact did Medicare, the first large government health insurance plan have in budgetary terms? Medicare rose from $5.1 billion in 1968 to $436.0 billion in 2007 an astounding increase of 85.5 times over the 40-year period. Will Obama-Care be better?Beware of government estimates about the future cost of ObamaCare. When Medicare was being considered in the mid-1960s, the government projected that the outlays for the program 25 years down the road would be $10 billion. Instead, in 1990, 25 years later, the outlays were $107 billion. Government estimates were off by a factor of more than 10!Medicaid, the other large medical program currently in effect, outdid Medicare. Medicaid outlays in 1968 were $1.8 billion. In 2007 they had risen to $190.6 billion, an increase in dollar terms of 105.9 times.And that is only the Federal outlay number. There is a roughly equal Medicaid amount spent by the states due to federal mandates. Without those mandates we would not be reading about the large deficits that most states endure.The idea of expanding the federal role in the medical arena is truly fiscally irresponsible. If in the 40-year span from 1968 through 2007 Social Security went up 25 times, Medicare 85.5 and Medicaid 105.9, why did the total federal budget increase overall only 15.3 times? What held the budget back? It was largely defense. Defense outlays rose from $82.2 billion in 1968 (or 46.1% of the total budget) to $547.9 billion in 2007 (20.1% of the total budget). In dollars, that is an increase of a bit less than 6.7 times.
Site Content
Additional Information
http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/obamacare-guru-boasted-abortion-lowered-crime/ Now a CNN political analyst, Carney told host Jake Tapper Gruber “speaks from the Ivory Tower with remarkable hubris about the American voter and by extension the American Congress.” The Washington Times reported taxpayers paid Gruber millions for his work on Obamacare. Not only did he receive hundreds of thousands from the White House, but many states paid him as much as $400,000 each to produce reports praising the health-care law. In “Freakonomics,” Levitt and Dubner reasoned that because unwanted children of poor, minority and single mothers were aborted before birth, society reduced the number of “marginal children” likely to become violent criminals and drug addicts. From there, Levitt and Dubner advanced Gruber’s argument that readily available abortion not only reduced welfare costs but also saved money in the judicial system.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/millions-dollars-jonathan-gruber-got/ Gruber apparently has not objected to the fact that those same taxpayers were on the hook for $6 million in federal and state contracts awarded to him over the past six years. Gruber — whom Obama dismissed Sunday as “some adviser” — raked in $5.9 million in taxpayer dollars through federal and state contracts awarded from 2008 to 2014 by agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/abc-and-nbc-continue-blackout-gruber-video-cbs-ignores-clip-pelosi-praising-gruber-2009 DEMOCRATS the party of LIES, DECEPTION, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, INCOMPETENCE: M.I.T. Professor Jonathan Gruber was an intellectual architect of ObamaCare, but here, at a conference last year, he said the law was written to hide crucial details from an American public too dumb to understand. JONATHAN GRUBER said: You get a law which said healthy people are going to pay in, it made explicit that healthy people pay and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Ok? lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to get this thing to pass and you know, it’s the second best argument. Look, I was Mark was right. I wish we can make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law then not.http://thepunditpress.com/2014/11/12/it-just-keeps-getting-better-third-video-surfaces-of-obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-calling-americans-stupid/ DEMOCRATS the party of LIES, DECEPTION, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, INCOMPETENCE: The sound bites just keep coming from Democrats’ Obamacare architect and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, that could help the GOP if they actually take up the fight to do something about the disaster known as Obamacare. A third video as now surfaced showing Gruber talking about how the “basic exploitation” of the ignorance of American voters contributed to the passage of Obamacare. “In America, we have a pernicious feature of our tax code, which says that if MIT pays me in wages, I get taxed. But if your employer pays you in health insurance, you do not. John Kerry said, ‘No, no. We’re not going to tax your health insurance. We’re going to tax those evil insurance companies. We’re going to impose a tax that if they sell insurance that’s too expensive, we’re going to tax them.’ And, conveniently, the tax rate will happen to be the marginal tax rate under the income tax code. So, basically, it’s the same thing: We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. “It’s a very clever, you know, basically exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter. “The dirty secret is the American voter doesn’t actually care about the uninsured. The dirty secret is: You can’t really get a law passed by saying, ‘We’re helping the uninsured.’ You have to make it about cost control to get it passed. Because that’s what the American public cares about. (This works this way for any tax, minimum wage, regulation or any other cost forced upon businesses—the consumer will pay, workers will pay in lower or lost benefits, less hours & wages or less jobs by mechanization or outsourcing jobs to lower costs, investors/job creators also get hurt)
Site Content
Additional Information
http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/abc-nbc-pbs-npr-nyt-lat-ap-censor-gruber-stupid-americans-video DEMOCRATS the party of LIES, DECEPTION, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, INCOMPETENCE: Where do you get your Misinformation? Just imagine the reaction of the liberal media if a video had surfaced of a George W. Bush administration official admitting that “lack of transparency” was “a huge political advantage” in selling the Iraq war and that they relied on the “stupidity of the American voter” to launch an attack on Iraq? That video would be everywhere. However, the clip of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber using those exact phrases in talking about the passage of the Affordable Care Act has yet to be reported on ABC or NBC’s evening or morning shows. The sum total of Big Liberal Democrap Marxist Media Complex Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network coverage was a 2 minute, 50 second segment on Thursday’s CBS This Morning - six days after the tape was first discovered. On the print side the Washington Post offered a front page story on Gruber on Thursday. But the Gruber comment has yet to show up in the pages of The New York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times or even the Associated Press. Public broadcasting has been a no-show as well, with no Gruber mentions on PBS or NPR. The media have been too busy bemoaning new Republican attempts to repeal ObamaCare.http://liberalsbackwardsthink.com/2014/11/13/americans-are-too-stupid-to-understand-the-obamacare-tax-says-aca-architect/ Secretary of State John Kerry suggested the government tax the insurance companies and let them pass the cost on to their consumers. This tax, combined with the regulations requiring businesses to supply their employees with ObamaCare, is the primary reason the U.S. economy has been languishing the past six years as the Democrats suck more wealth out of the economy. http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/obamacare-guru-obama-himself-plotted-deception/ In yet another revealing video, Obamacare adviser Jonathan Gruber disclosed President Obama himself was part of the discussion about the need to deceive the American people to pass his signature health-care law. “The problem is it’s a political nightmare, and people say, ‘No, you can’t tax my benefits,” Gruber said in a June 13, 2012, interview with the PBS program “Frontline. ” … So what we did a lot in that room was think a lot about, well how could we make this work.” Gruber describe Obama as “really a realistic guy.” “He was, ‘Look, I can’t just do this.’ He said, ‘It’s just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phase-ins and other things?’ And we talked about it. He was just very interested in that topic,” Gruber said. Commentator Guy Benson at the blog Hot Air observed the latest unearthed video might indicate why Obama was “so keen on obscuring the nature of his signature law’s taxes.” “Perhaps because Obama just recently spent months relentlessly hammering John McCain over a proposal to tax health benefits ‘for the first time.’ So he needed the (deceitful, lying, Democrat) Gruber to swoop in and help craft a strategy of evasion and deflection.” http://www.freedomworks.org/content/white-house-really-doesnt-want-you-listen-guy-paid-400000-craft-obamacare The White House can try to distance itself from Gruber all it wants, but he was paid a hefty sum by the Department of Health and Human Services, nearly $400,000, to help craft the law. According to the February 2009 notice posted on FedBizOpps.gov, Gruber's work "will facilitate the [White House] Office of Health Reform’s efforts to develop proposals to increase access to affordable health insurance for all Americans." What's more, Gruber visited the White House nearly 20 times, according to visitor logs. The White House actively promoted his work on ObamaCare as well as his testimony to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, providing talking points for his so-called "objective analysis." It's worth noting that Gruber's contract with the administration was never disclosed to the Senate HELP Committee. In a November 2009 blog post, then-White House OMB director Peter Orzag linked to, what he called, "an insightful article" on ObamaCare and quoted Gruber's endorsement of the bill working its way through Congress. Another blog post from the same month promoted a "compelling new report" by Gruber on the purported health premium "savings." And these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. The fact of the matter is Gruber's work was the basis on which the White House and administration sold ObamaCare to the American public. There's no getting around that. http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/stupid-is-as-stupid-votes Obamacare: Of course, the irony is that American voters must not be stupid -- else the President wouldn’t have had to lie in the first place! Obviously, he was concerned that selling the system “as is” would have exposed it for the freedom-crushing, money-sucking, job-killing measure it was. And despite the administration’s snow job, plenty of Americans weren’t deceived. Including FRC. We warned from Day 1 that the system was chocked-full of rationing, taxpayer-funded abortion, sky-high costs, and massive plan casualties. It’s not that the American people are “stupid,” it’s that they have an expectation that they can trust their elected leaders -- or at a minimum, that their leaders won’t willfully lie to them. As George Orwell predicted in 1984, “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” The school’s role isn’t to be a Christmas cop or Menorah monitor; its role is to instill an appreciation for the history and tradition of our nation -- which just so happens to be Christian! The Obama administration is ignoring the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 which states: “it shall be the policy of the United States…to condemn violations of religious freedom, and to promote, and to assist other governments in the promotion of, the fundamental right to freedom of religion.”http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/rock-enroll-drumming-up-business-for-ocare In a new Gallup poll, only 37% of Americans approve of the Democrats’ Obamacare system that’s killing jobs, spiking costs, ballooning debt, funding abortion, and destroying freedom. Thanks to ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, who credited “the stupidity of the American voter” with the bill’s passage, those numbers have nowhere to go but down.http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/the-transparent-trap After four years of denying the law covers abortion-on-demand, the General Accounting Office (GAO) finally blew the lid off ANOTHER ObamaCare lie and confirmed what groups like FRC have said all along: that Americans are footing the bill for the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in history. And making matters worse, the entire administration refuses to admit it. Remember “we have to pass ObamaCare to find out what’s in it?”http://obamacareabortion.com/ Check out the site today and make sure you’re informed before you’re insured! http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/11/26/schumer-in-retrospect-we-should-have-focused-on-the-economy-not-obamacare-n1923848?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=thpm Schumer: In Retrospect, We Should Have Focused on the Economy (JOBS), Not Obamacare Several interesting bits in that clip -- from the qualified assessment of the wasteful, ineffectual stimulus program (which failed on its own terms), to the the frank admission of misplaced priorities, to the acknowledgement that the general public didn't want Obamacare (despite all of the overwrought promises and lies), to the almost jaw-droppingly candid political calculus about uninsured Americans as a voting bloc. Also implicit in Schumer's analysis is a concession that Obamacare is not, and never was, the "jobs bill" Democrats spent so much time and effort arguing it was. Empirical evidence has borne out that fact for years now, but it's rather striking hearing it straight from a ranking Democrat's mouth. Schumer is obviously grappling with the political facts on the ground, as they actually exist. http://www.tpnn.com/2014/12/09/new-tape-reveals-jonathan-gruber-admitting-obama-lied-about-obamacare-cost-savings/?utm_source=Newsletter+12%2F9%2F14+11am&utm_campaign=12%2F9%2F14+11am+&utm_medium=email As Jonathan Gruber, Democrat Liar and Fraudster, the Obamacare architect who admitted that the law was a scheme to deceive, who also referred to on multiple occasions, “the stupid American voter,” testifies today on Capitol Hill, a newly discovered podcast captures Gruber admitting that the supposed cost savings that Obama used to sell the law were completely fictitious. In other words, if the facts aren’t on your side, you make them up, and you spew a lot of them to see what he calls the “stupid American voter” will believe. You find out what the American people want, according to Gruber and his leftist ilk, then you invest the lies to accommodate them. That isn’t politics, Mr. Gruber, it’s lying and deception at its worse. The American voters really are stupid if they allow Obamacare, which was sold to the American people on a stack of intentional lies, to stand.
Site Content
Additional Information
:http://dailysignal.com/2014/12/15/gruber-reflects-undemocratic-left/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRolu63AZKXonjHpfsX56eQkX6W0lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4FSMNnI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU= DEMOCRAP GRUBER MENTALITY: The attitude of the Washington political establishment in general—and liberal elites in particular—is that Americans aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions. The public must be cajoled, misled, threatened and flat-out lied to in order to achieve the greatest good. Jonathan Gruber Thinks Like Most Liberals: You Are Too Stupid to Run Your Own Life http://aclj.org/obamacare/with-grubers-deceptions-is-it-any-wonder-obamacare-funds-abortion?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=newsletterGruber has also written extensively on his view that the abortion of “marginal children” is a “social good.” In a “scholarly” paper he co-authored titled, Abortion Legalization and Child Living Circumstances: Who is the “Marginal Child?”, he concluded that “the legalization of abortion saved the government over $14 billion in welfare payments through 1994,” referring to abortion of poor children as “positive selection.” The plaintiffs in Coons v. Lew have asked the Supreme Court to hear their case, calling IPAB "a group of unelected and unaccountable administrative officials who exercise an unprecedented amount of unchecked authority over the health care industry." Source: Tom Coburn and Phil Roe, "A Bad Provision Even by ObamaCare Standards," Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2014. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/9/ben-carson-the-unfairness-of-obamacare/Next year, when the employer mandate of (the Democrats’) Obamacare is activated, millions of Americans will be screaming in pain as their health insurance premiums skyrocket or as they lose their health insurance altogether. It will be just one more piece of the rapidly crumbling health care system that was forced upon the unsuspecting American people through political manipulation and deception. Admittedly many Americans who previously had no insurance were able to obtain insurance through Obamacare. It is good that such people were able to get insurance, but it is bad that they had to obtain their insurance through someone else’s suffering. When the preamble to the Constitution of United States talks about, “the general welfare,” it is talking about things that are good for all Americans and not just the chosen few at the expense of others. There is nothing in our Constitution about health care being a right, but it is certainly reasonable for a compassionate society, which we are, to provide access to good basic health care for all of its citizens.
Site Content
Innovare Health Alternative
Doctors are particularly skeptical about ObamaCare: 90% say premiums will go up; 70% say it will drive the best and brightest out of the profession; 65% say quality of care for their patients will decline. I am one of those doctors who fears for my patients' future care.
For 30 years, I've led physician groups who care for populations of seniors — with higher than average illness burden — at much lower than average total cost of care, with better outcomes.
I presently care for a regular Medicare population with quality rankings above 90% on six of seven measures. For an 11% higher illness burden, my total cost of care is 72% lower than average
(CMS Quality and Resource Use Report, March 2, 2012).
I also provide superior care for 1,000 Medicare Advantage members, whose illness burden, quality and satisfaction scores are even higher, under a richer benefit plan than Medicare, at a cost of care which is 50% less than average. If all Medicare beneficiaries were cared for under this model, Medicare could be administered for $290 billion annually instead of its current $580 billion, saving $2.9 trillion in 10 years, without any cuts, serving healthier, happier seniors.
We must liberate health care providers to innovate, compete and be rewarded not only on quality care for patients, but also on their performance and costs in achieving long-term population health.
Doing so will improve long-term citizen health and access to care, and reverse rising health care costs. The solution hides in strategically reducing government's role in health care.
This modest model solution already exists; it just needs room to breathe.
• Willey, an internist, is the founding CEO of several medical groups and a Medicare Advantage health plan, currently practicing with six physicians and five nurse practitioners as Innovare Health Advocates in St. Louis.
Site Content
Additional Information
Just google Surgery Center of Oklahoma and here is what you will find. For Achilles tendon repair, you will pay $5,730. That’s not an estimate with a huge variance around it. It’s a package price that includes doctor, nurse, anesthesia, room, drugs, supplies – everything. How refreshing, therefore, to find a hospital that quotes package prices in advance and is willing to compete for patients based on price and quality. Why are they doing it? For the simplest reason of all: to attract patients. Five years ago, Dr. Smith was frustrated. His surgery center had the best surgeons, the best outcomes and the lowest prices (sometimes by as much as 80 percent). His lobby should have been packed. Patients should have been beating down his door. But they weren’t. In fact, the patient flow was stagnant. He was outperforming his competitors, yet no one knew it. So, Dr. Smith started posting his prices online, while at the same time calling his center “free market-loving, price-displaying and state-of-the-art.
Site Content
Slavery of DemoCRAPcare
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/18/carson-insidious-effects-of-political-correctness/
CARSON: Political correctness, the rise of Government power & control and the slavery of Obamacare
I have stated in the past that Obamacare is the worst thing to occur in our country since slavery. Why did I make such a strong statement? Obviously, I recognize the horrors of slavery. My roots have been traced back to Africa, and I am aware of some horrendous deeds inflicted on my ancestors in this country. The purpose of the statement was not to minimize the most evil institution in American history, but rather to draw attention to a profound shift of power from the people to the government.
I think this shift is beginning to wrench the nation from one centered on the rights of individual citizens to one that accepts the right of the government to control even the most essential parts of our lives. This strikes a serious blow to the concept of freedom that gave birth to this nation. Some well-known radicals have very publicly written and stated that in order for their idea of a utopian, egalitarian society to emerge in the United States, the government must control health care, which ensures the dependency of the populace on government. Historical analysis of many countries that have gone this route demonstrates obliteration of the middle class and massive expansion of the poor, dependent class with a relatively small number of elites in control. It is time in America for the people to open their eyes to what is happening all around them as our nation undergoes radical changes without so much as a conversation out of fear of being called a name, of facing economically adverse actions or of enduring government harassment, characterized by the perpetrators as “phony scandals.” Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Site Content
Singapore Alternative
Thttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052748704500604574483712417152696.html
In Singapore, by contrast, they already have universal coverage. They also have world-class quality care at world-competitive prices. Dr. Yap is referring to the higher costs that come from an American system that depends on regulation and oversight to accomplish what Singapore tries to do with competition and choice. At the Raffles lounge for international patients, he shows me an example of the latter. It's a one-page, easy-to-read list of fees. This is no accident. Like ours, Singapore's system is a mix of public and private care and financing. Unlike ours, Singapore's system is anchored, as the Ministry of Health puts it, "on the twin philosophies of individual responsibility and affordable health care for all."
"Individual responsibility" is not just a buzzword. All but the abjectly poor have to pay for some of their care, another downward pressure on prices. Perhaps most important, almost all working Singaporeans are required to put money in a medical savings account that they use for out of pocket expenses. It's their money, and they control it. As a result, they are careful about spending it.
"In Singapore almost everyone has to pay something for their care," says Dr. Yap. "When it's your money, you really ask yourself: Do I really need this?"
Site Content
Additional Information
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/479964/200906181835/Why-Scrap-A-Health-Care-System-That-250-Million-Americans-Like-.aspx We have 300 million Americans. Subtract the 45 million — 15% of us — with no health insurance. That leaves 255 million Americans, or 85%, with it.And the insurance is lousy, right? Not according to a 2006 ABC News-Kaiser Family Foundation-USA Today survey. It found that 89% of Americans were satisfied with the quality of their own health care.Nearly half of the 45 million fall in the category of my 26-year-old nephew. He smokes cigarettes, dates, eats out, goes to movies and, like all young people, lives through his cell phone.With a slight change in priorities, he could afford health insurance, the cost of which at his age and health starts at about $100 a month. Take a look at a Reason Foundation video (available at http://reason.tv/video/show/560.html ) of interviews with a bunch of non-health-insured 20-somethings. These Gen Xers copped to dropping money on clothes, booze, nightlife, the latest tech gizmos and other things of interest to them.With a change in priorities, these young folks — far more representative of those without insurance than the forlorn husband and wife sitting on a porch swing — could both afford and qualify for health insurance. They just consider it a low priority.So here's the question: Do we allow a complete government takeover of the section of health care it doesn't already run, for 10 million to 15 million or so without health insurance on a permanent basis? Again, 255 million Americans already have it. Many millions more could get it if they wanted to. And 89% of Americans are satisfied with the care they now receive.What's wrong with charity — people helping people? America remains the most generous nation on the face of the earth. We donate more of our time and money than countries like England, Germany and Japan. During the Great Depression, before the New Deal, charitable giving skyrocketed. After the New Deal, charitable giving continued, but not at nearly the same rate. People expected government to address the problem, and taxpayers felt they gave at the office.
Site Content
Additional Information
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/483646/200907291749/History-Of-Govt-Run-Health-Care-Is-A-Study-In-Skyrocketing-Costs.aspx In 1968 total spending by the federal government was $178.1 billion dollars. Forty years later in 2007, total spending had risen to $2,728.9 billion dollars. So the budget of the U.S. increased in dollar terms 15.3 times in that 40-year span.But all programs did not rise in unison. Some rose more, others less. Outlays for Social Security rose from $23.3 billion in 1968 to $581.4 billion in 2007, an increase of 25 times. So Social Security drove the budget higher at a substantially faster rate than the budget rose as a whole.ObamaCare plans to expand the government's role in insuring the American people. What kind of impact did Medicare, the first large government health insurance plan have in budgetary terms? Medicare rose from $5.1 billion in 1968 to $436.0 billion in 2007 an astounding increase of 85.5 times over the 40-year period. Will Obama-Care be better?Beware of government estimates about the future cost of ObamaCare. When Medicare was being considered in the mid-1960s, the government projected that the outlays for the program 25 years down the road would be $10 billion. Instead, in 1990, 25 years later, the outlays were $107 billion. Government estimates were off by a factor of more than 10!Medicaid, the other large medical program currently in effect, outdid Medicare. Medicaid outlays in 1968 were $1.8 billion. In 2007 they had risen to $190.6 billion, an increase in dollar terms of 105.9 times.And that is only the Federal outlay number. There is a roughly equal Medicaid amount spent by the states due to federal mandates. Without those mandates we would not be reading about the large deficits that most states endure.The idea of expanding the federal role in the medical arena is truly fiscally irresponsible. If in the 40-year span from 1968 through 2007 Social Security went up 25 times, Medicare 85.5 and Medicaid 105.9, why did the total federal budget increase overall only 15.3 times? What held the budget back? It was largely defense. Defense outlays rose from $82.2 billion in 1968 (or 46.1% of the total budget) to $547.9 billion in 2007 (20.1% of the total budget). In dollars, that is an increase of a bit less than 6.7 times.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/504570/200908271729/No-Reform-Without-Skin-In-The-Game.aspx After evaluating a patient I recommend a particular course of treatment. More often than not, the first question from the patient is not, "How effective is the treatment?' or "How safe is it?" Rather, the refrain is "Will my insurance cover it?"If I tell them, yes, your insurance will cover the treatment, their eyes glaze over and they couldn't care less what their care will cost. If, on the other hand, the procedure is not covered, the bargaining begins: "Do you give cash discounts?" "Can I set up a payment plan?" Or, "That's too much right now."It's easy to spend someone else's money. It's a different story when your wallet is on the table.Currently, patients largely have no incentive to control health care costs because they do not directly bear the brunt of these costs. Sure they bear it indirectly. But we have become coddled into thinking that if we are not directly writing a check or forking over cash, then we're really not paying.In reality it's the insurance companies and the government currently that are the purchasers of health care, not patients.Few patients realize that doctors by and large do not get paid what we bill. By virtue of the contracts we have signed with insurance carriers, we agree to a reduced reimbursement, allegedly in return for the promise of having access to that insurer's patient pool.Therefore, our motivation with regard to the insurance companies is to get the maximum reimbursement to which we are entitled, not to control costs. This certainly does not mean, contrary to the pablum spouted by President Obama, that we perform needless tests or procedures in order to pad the bottom line. Hardly.Rather, it means that physicians are not incentivized to keep costs down. Why would I charge $50 for an office visit for which an insurer will pay me $75?The bottom line is that neither patients nor physicians have "skin" in the game, to use a popular sports phrase, with regard to controlling costs. The patient has no stake if the care is covered by their insurance. And the physicians stand to lose more if they don't seek the maximum reimbursement allowed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081902261.html Dr. Denis Cortese, the chief executive of the Mayo Clinic. He's already doing what the nation needs -- that is, providing high-quality health care at relatively low cost. Every time I listen to Cortese explain what's wrong with the system, I have the same reaction: Let him and other smart health professionals lead us out of the political morass. Talking to Cortese this week, I heard two themes that cut to the heart of the debate. First, he thinks Obama has made a mistake in moving toward the narrower goal of "health insurance reform" when what the country truly needs is health system reform. Imposing a mandate for universal insurance will only make things worse if we don't change the process so that it becomes more efficient and less costly. The system we have is gradually bankrupting the country; expanding that system without changing the internal dynamics is folly. Second, Cortese argues that reformers should stop obsessing over whether there's a "public option" in the plan. Yes, we need a yardstick for measuring costs and effectiveness. But we should start by fixing the public options we already have. Cortese counts existing public options that should be laboratories for reform: Medicare, with its 45 million patients and a fee-for-service structure that all but guarantees bad medicine; Medicaid, with an additional 34 million beneficiaries; military medicine, through which government doctors deliver state-of-the-art care; the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has improved performance at its hospitals by embracing new technology; the "Tricare" insurance plan for military retirees; and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. What difference would such Medicare reform make? Take a look at estimates prepared by the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (which developed the national "health atlas" that was the basis for the widely read New Yorker article by Dr. Atul Gawande). At current spending rates, Medicare will run a $660 billion deficit by 2023. But by cutting the annual growth in per-capita spending from the current national average of 3.5 percent to 2.4 percent (the rate in San Francisco, for example), Medicare could save $1.42 trillion and post a big surplus. This "pay for value" approach would amount to a cultural revolution in American health care.
Site Content
Additional Information
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/508314/200910071900/Does-Medicare-Care-.aspx Premium rates are affected in no small way by government policy. Mandates handed down by lawmakers add significantly to costs.The Congressional Budget Office believes mandates such as requiring insurers to sell policies to anyone who wants one and rules on what treatments must be covered increase premium costs by 15%. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance says the increase is higher — 20% in some states and as much as 50% in others.As for denial of care, Medicare, which we've described as the government's public option for senior citizens, has the highest denial rate in the country, according to the American Medical Association's 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card. From March 1, 2007, to March 10 of last year, Medicare rejected 475,566 of 6.94 million claims for a rate of 6.85%.Aetna was the only private insurer that had a similar number, denying 43,317 of 637,239 claims for a rate of 6.8%. But the average of seven carriers was 4.05% including Aetna. Dropping Aetna as an outlier takes the denial rate down to 3.08%.Medicare's biggest reason for rejection (27.8%) was claims lacking information "needed for adjudication," the AMA report says. More than one-fifth (20.9%) of the rejections were in response to procedures deemed not to be a medical necessity by Medicare. Nearly 4% were rejected because they were noncovered services performed during a routine exam or screening. In 3.1% of the cases, Medicare said the expenses were incurred before the patient was covered — a pre-existing condition. Other claims were denied because the patient wasn't covered by Medicare or couldn't be identified as a Medicare recipient, or there were paperwork problems.
Not surprisingly, the private insurers didn't deny a single claim due to corporate greed. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=2ISS2a_091008.png&docId=508314&xmpSource=&width=408&height=264&caption=
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/507689/200910011904/States-Show-How-Not-To-Fix-Health-Care.aspx Hawaii, Oregon, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Maine have all created some version of government takeover or administration of health care, and all are a mess.Government intrusion is not reform. Congress must use the failures of state-run health care as cautionary tales of change to avoid. It's time to start pushing for real reforms that increase access and portability and, above all, protect the primacy of the doctor-patient relationship.• Houston Toloczko is senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Liberty and director of its Center for Health Security and Access.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/527930/201003191907/Truth-Is-A-Casualty-Of-The-Final-Push.aspx "Our proposal is paid for ... our cost-cutting measures would reduce most people's premiums and bring down our deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades." Government programs always cost more than projected. Medicare, which has $86 trillion in unfunded liabilities, was supposed to cost $10 billion within 25 years of its implementation. It actually cost $107 billion.The real cost of the Democrats' reform plan, according to the Cato Institute, which isn't handcuffed in its estimates like the Congressional Budget Office, is $2.5 trillion over the first decade.• "If this vote fails, then insurance companies will continue to run amok." They're not exactly wildcatting as it is. Health plan providers boast a profit margin of 3.4% — placing them 88th of 215 industries in Morningstar rankings. More than 2,000 state mandates dictate what coverages they provide.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/510340/200910261849/Insuring-Doom.aspx As the Associated Press recently reported, the health insurance industry's profit margins tend to be in the 6% range, not impressive at all when compared with other areas of insurance. Margins shrank to 2.2% last year, with health insurers ranking 35th on the Fortune 500 list of industries. As a result, the credit ratings of some leading insurers have been downgraded to negative.Health insurers' earnings grew less than 9% in the last five years, and they now rank below communications firms, railroads, beer companies, detergent makers, fast-food restaurants, kitchen utensil manufacturers, and chocolate makers. Watch out — one of those might be Uncle Sam's next target.
Site Content
Additional Information
June 30, 2011 Five Percent of Population Responsible for Half of U.S. Health SpendingAbout 5 percent of the population is responsible for almost half of all health care spending in the United States and for rising premium rates, according to a new report from the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, says the National Journal.The report stated about half of the U.S. population accounted for only 3.1 percent of all expenditures. But 10 percent of the population hogged 63.6 percent of all health spending, the survey found. The top 5 percent of the population accounted for 47.5 percent of all spending, and the top 1 percent accounted for 20.2 percent. While the average person incurred about $233 in costs in 2008 for health care services, those in the top half of spending cost insurers, the government or themselves $7,317. The top 1 percent cost $76,476. Adults 55 and over made up a larger proportion of the high-spending group, while those in the lower spending group tended to be younger. The report also found that people with at least one chronic health condition were two to four times more likely to have spending in the top 5 percent group.The likelihood increased as the number of chronic conditions rose. Nearly half of people in the top 5 percent of health care spending had high blood pressure, a third had high cholesterol and a quarter had diabetes.As health care spending rose, so did private health insurance premiums. During the 2005 to 2009 stretch in which health care spending rose, premiums for private health insurance increased by nearly 15 percent.Source: Althea Fung, "Report: 5 Percent of People Account for Half of U.S. Health Care Spending," National Journal, June 27, 2011. "Understanding U.S. Health Care Spending," National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, July 2011.For text:http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/report-5-percent-of-people-account-for-half-of-u-s-health-care-spending-20110627 July 1, 2011 Health Care Costs Vary WidelyPatients pay as much as 683 percent more for the same medical procedures, such as MRIs or CT scans, in the same town, depending on which doctor they choose, according to a new study by a national health care group, reports USA Today.That means patients who pay for a percentage of their care, instead of a copayment, may end up spending hundreds of dollars more for a certain procedure than they would if they chose treatment somewhere else -- often within a few minutes' drive.Change:healthcare looked at claims data from May 2010 to May 2011 for 82,000 employees of small businesses to determine price differences for several procedures: MRIs, CT scans, ultrasounds and PET scans.For a pelvic CT scan, they found that within one town in the Southwest, a person could pay as little as $230 for the procedure, or as a much as $1,800. For a brain MRI in a town in the Northeast, a person could pay $1,540 -- or $3,500. Howard McClure, CEO of Change:healthcare says health plans are moving toward "reference-based pricing," in which they look at the average price of a procedure for a region, then say that's all they'll reimburse. But if a patient does not know how much a procedure costs, he or she gets stuck with the remainder of the bill if it goes above that average price.Providers, he said, often don't know real costs, either. When asked by patients for the cost of a procedure, providers often say they need to check with the insurer. The patient only learns the real cost when the bill arrives, McClure says.Source: Kelly Kennedy, "Health Care Costs Vary Widely, Study Shows," USA Today, June 30, 2011. "Healthcare Transparency Index," Change:healthcare, June 2011.For text:http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2011-06-30-health-costs-wide-differences-locally_n.htm
Site Content
Whole Foods Alternative
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit:
• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan.
We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness. Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying
.• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care
.• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?
Copyright © 2018 obama legacy - All Rights Reserved.