Reply With Quote
The biggest federal "welfare" s are the middle class, agribusiness, GE, financial services firms, and defense contractors.
They also employ.
The biggest federal "welfare" s are the middle class, agribusiness, GE, financial services firms, and defense contractors.
the geezers are the biggest welfare babies and also the largest Voting block
I count them as middle class, but regardless, yes, they are the true federal welfare kings and queens.
A lot of the geezers, and their lifelong savings, have been totally ed by Repugs and their capitalists enablers/johns, but that's OK, the free market never s up and is always self-correcting, while guaranteeing a fair distribution of society's wealth.
Class warfare happens all the time at every level. The fact that you're only aware of it when it touches your wallet speaks volumes about your faux indignation. Furthermore, when estate taxes went down 10% and the budget kept on growing, it meant everyone else had to make up for it. If not now, then in the future. That includes your wallet. But you're too dumb to realize that and in that case.
Now, I never claimed class warfare to be fair. We can argue about that all day. But to claim it only happens when you get taxed is re ed.
Oxymoron?
You don't believe in states being able to determine by themselves what marriage is?
At any rate, I'll look for a post, but I seem to recall quite clearly that you were and spoke in favor of Bush's proposal to amend the Cons ution in order to introduce language that defined marriage as a union between man and woman.
ElNono, IIRC, he is in favor of that, but he would be MORE in favor of just getting rid of government-sponsored marriage between any parties.
I think a bunch of us are. My original point is that he would have no qualms supporting a federal order that overrides the state mandates in that case if it were the only option on the table.
The problem with the govt taking itself out of marriage is that marriage is less of a religious bond that it is a contractual bond, having legal and financial implications and obligations, pensions, etc. But WC never let practical considerations puncture his ideological fantasy world.
You could have civil unions for everybody granting all the rights.
Exactly. Two men, two women, a man and a woman. I don't care. Let there be a legal government do ent to convey tax differentiation and legal rights. Let marriage and a legal/civil union be separate things. Get the government out of marriage.
Angry Docs Say Proposed Government-Run Health Care Plan Will Drive Physicians out of Medicine
Friday, June 26, 2009
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor
President Barack Obama appears at the American Medical Association meeting in Chicago, June 15, 2009. (AP photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)
(CNSNews.com) - You do not have to be a brain surgeon to see that government-run health care will bode ill for doctors and medicine, says Dr. David McKalip of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
But McKalip, who happens to be a St. Petersburg, Fla.-based neurosurgeon, predicts an eventual mass exodus of doctors out of medicine if Congress passes a health care reform bill that contains a mandatory government insurance option.
“I think you’ll see an incremental change where doctors will be squeezed so hard, they will simply start migrating out of medicine,” McKalip said at a unique virtual town meeting broadcast on the Internet Thursday evening.
“The older doctors, 55 or 50 they will leave early. The other ones who are mid-career, mid-generation, young 40s – Well, I’m already supplementing my income in other ways so that I can support my family. I’ll practice as long as I can, but I can’t practice by paying to work.”
McKalip, who is president of the Florida Neurosurgery Association, was one of more than 20 speakers – including two doctors in Congress, Reps. Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) – who "took to the air" from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m EDT to complain about President Obama’s government-run health insurance plan.
“Unfortunately what’s coming is a government takeover of medicine,” McKalip said. “The goal is to ration care. Whenever the government takes over medicine, they always ration care. When you bring this up to the proponents, they always say that ‘Rationing happens anyway, we just want the government to do it.’ They never deny that there will be rationing.”
Doctors will be forced to ration for the government, he said.
“They will be forced by being paid less if they don’t comply with certain bureaucratic protocol set up in a committee,” he said. “They will be forced if they don’t do what the hospital tells them to do – because there is a big plan to move all the money into the hands of the hospitals, so that doctors will have to do what they are told, and as it turns out, the hospitals are doing what the government tells them to do.”
Doctors are already being told how to practice medicine, McKalip said, because of Medicare/Medicaid.
“Doctor’s feel hopeless because they don’t see any way out of the system without becoming a sort of slave to the system,” McKalip said.
Low reimbursements from Medicare/Medicaid are already forcing some doctors to pay expenses out of their own pockets, just to keep practicing medicine.
“There was an oncologist today who told me that last month he worked just as hard as he had ever worked, did all they things he had to do to take care of his patients – but he had to go to the bank and take out $3,000 to pay his practice costs because there were cuts in chemotherapy payments – and the way they were paid,” McKalip said. “That doctor is going to go out of business – and then where will patients get their cancer care?”
McKalip said he personally has had a Medicare/Medicaid patient who wanted to go to the biggest cancer care center in the region.
“They wouldn’t take her because she had Medicaid,” McKalip said. She had coverage, he said, but the government wouldn’t allow him to make up the difference between what Medicaid would pay and what the facility cost.
“Even if I form a private charity in my county, which I’m doing, to pay the difference the government forbids that patient to use private money to pay the difference to get the care she deserves,” McKalip said.
It’s time to “take back medicine for patients,” he added.
"I think Americans need to stand up and say, 'There is another way – no third-party control. No government control. Give the patients the control and we can solve these cost problems.'"
On July 17, the physicians group plans to conduct hundreds of events across the country protesting the proposed health care reform.
A note I just got from my CFO (my business has two sides: we are a TPA that manages employer's self-insured medical plans, and we supplement that as an employee benefits brokerage firm):
Our company is probably average in terms of medical costs to payroll; our average age is a little high, so we have higher claims, but we pay pretty well. If that's the case, and employers have an opportunity to STOP covering employees medical for little to no penalty? Well, you see what one CFO thinks about it......the goal is a single payor system without CALLING it a single payor system.....if it goes through, well played by Obama (if you like that kind of thing).I think I heard the scenario we will come to live with this morning on CNBC. Representative Paul Ryan, (R) Wis, was a guest host on Squawk Box. Basically, here's his take on how things will play out in the real world.
Apparently the current, most favored, proposals that include a government-run health plan also include an 8% of payroll "penalty" for employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. But is it a penalty, really?
Lets take our company as an example. For the fiscal year just ended June 30, our company's cost of health insurance equalled 12.6% of payroll. For the previous year it was 9.7%. So, for our company, would 8% be a penalty or an opportunity to reduce costs while their employees would still have health insurance? By default, the government plan wins unless private insurers can reduce costs to their customers to something under 8%. We don't yet know what the cost to employees or the uninsured would be. At least I don't. Maybe there's no cost? Or, no cost initially. Some of you may know what the proposals on that side are.
But compe ion for benefit packages offered to employees is NOT likely to go away. And, probably, net cost to employers is not like to go down, regardless of what the Congress does. A good guess would be, as with Medicare, there will be an explosion of "supplemental" plans offered by employers to cover what the government does not. Kind of like the real function of the minimum wage is to provide a "baseline" for wages, the government plan may become the minimum standard for healthcare. But, all said and done, I doubt the overall cost to employers, or employees, is going down. We just have a major new player.
From a practical standpoint, we'd probably best stop worrying about "whether" there will be a government plan and start worrying about what it will cover and what it will cost our employees. It's beginning to look like a done deal. According to Representative Ryan, about the only role the Republicans will likely play is to possibly "negotiate the terms of defeat."
Have a nice day! Fred
Change my ass. Say one thing, but have alternate goals that go unspoken (Iraq & WMD;s anyone?). Business as usual; just a different agenda.
I'm writing my CFO back, seeing if I have enough to buy an island. If I do, I'll P.M. a couple of you with invitations...
Last edited by 101A; 07-20-2009 at 12:31 PM.
Make sure to buy a lot of those small umbrellas for your drinks... you'd be surprised how many people forget that.
Healthcare needs to be reformed, yes. Vouchers with medi-gap type of regulation is about the only solution that would work.
PJTV Invites Citizens to Engage in Virtual Health Care Forum on July 22
Posted by Editor Monday, 20 July 2009 Pajamas TV will host key lawmakers, health care specialists, and policy experts in a Virtual Forum on Health Care at 7:00 p.m. ET on Wednesday, July 22 that will be streamed live at www.PJTV.com. PJTV is encouraging citizens to join the discussion about the consequences of government-run health care by submitting questions, comments and ideas through email, PJTV.com, YouTube and Twitter. Questions will also be accepted during the forum on July 22.
In the days leading up to the July 22 forum, citizens can submit their text or video input via several online communications channels. They can visit http://www.pjtv.com/healthcare, and follow the instructions there. They can also email their text or video questions to [email protected]This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . For video submissions, participants must include their full name, hometown and a contact phone number, and videos must be 30 seconds or less. During the July 22 webcast, viewers will be able to send in their comments via email and Twitter.
"PJTV is bringing the health care debate into the homes of our nation's online community with this interactive forum. With the future of our health care system at stake, concerned citizens deserve to have their voices heard on this issue, and PJTV is providing the forum to make that happen," said Roger L. Simon, CEO of Pajamas TV.
Featured participants in PJTV's Virtual Forum on Health Care include House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), Congressman Tom Price (R-GA), Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, and Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI), the top Republican member on the House Ways and Means Committee. John Goodman, President and Founder of the National Center for Policy Analysis will also be participating along with other experts on health care policy. The forum will be hosted from Pajamas TV's Washington, D.C. studio by "Instapundit" Glenn Reynolds and will include PJTV commentators and bloggers from studios in Los Angeles and New York City.
This forum is the latest installment in PJTV's coverage of the health care debate. Just this week, PJTV released an eye-opening hidden camera video expos , hosted by PJTV entertainer Steven Crowder, that reveals the failures of the Canadian socialized medicine system. To watch the video, visit http://www.pjtv.com/v/2153.
About Pajamas TV
Pajamas TV (www.PJTV.com) is a conservative and center-right Internet TV company. Working with conservative think tanks and bloggers, Pajamas TV started production in September 2008 as the first online TV venture to be given a sky box at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis. The Pajamas TV headquarters studio is located in El Segundo, Calif., with remote studio locations in New York City and Washington, D.C. In addition, PJTV brings in many contributors via web cams.
For more information about the online forum or to schedule an interview with a Pajamas TV representative, please contact Megan Franko (ext. 148) or Romney Beebe (ext. 118) at (703) 683-5004.
Source: Pajamas TV
Source: Pajamas TV
July 21, 2009 The CBO Death Knell For "Obamacare"
Pejman Yousefzadeh: The Fine Print Ought To Set Off Alarm Bells In Washington
Photo President Obama talks about his plan for health care reform. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
(CBS) Pejman Yousefzadeh writes a blog for The New Ledger.
I cannot remember where I read it, alas, but some news story, some months ago, pointed out that in anticipation of health care reform, the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office--and the current Director of the Office of Management and Budget--Peter Orszag, increased the hiring of staff economists well versed in the fiscal and economic consequences of any changes in the health care system. With these new hires, Orszag hoped that CBO would be well-prepared to turn out quick and accurate estimates of any health reform legislation.
One imagines that while the current CBO Director, Doug Elmendorf, is happy about these hires, OMB Director Orszag regrets them. Why? Because CBO issued a fairly blistering report concerning the ability of the current health care reform plans to save money and control health care costs for the long term.
CBO's hammer blow to the prospects of the reform packages currently on the table was buried in this Politico report, but its issuance ought to have alarm bells going off in Washington:
In an ominous sign for proponents, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that none of the bills he has seen would contain health care costs to reduce them significantly over time. This is the main argument offered by Obama and Democrats as to why Congress can spend $1 trillion and save money.Far from burying the lede, this report highlights CBO's undercutting of the Obama Administration's claims. Hilariously, Senator Harry Reid's response to Elmendorf's unwelcome-but-devastating analysis was to suggest that Elmendorf, "who in recent months has set back health care efforts with his office's cost analyses of the plans being floated," should run for Congress, "suggesting [Reid] found the CBO estimate to be partisan in its results." Of course, it goes without saying that Reid is unburdened by any experience in having attended charm school, and one can understand his remarks in light of this fact. But charming or not, Reid's reply does nothing to alleviate the concerns of any halfway respectable policy wonk that the claims of the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats notwithstanding, health care costs will not be contained or reduced under the health care reform plans at issue.
“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount,” Elmendorf said.
“And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.”
Cost control and reduction are the goals that any health care reform worthy of the name should be shooting for. Too many people have gotten hung up on the concept of universal coverage, neglecting to note that universal coverage helps drive health care providers out of business, that it leads to incredibly onerous increases in taxes, and that current Congressional plans promising universal coverage will only serve to push down wages, increase the complexity of the health care system, and stick us with yet another unaffordable en lement.
The emerging picture that comes out of the current health care reform bills under consideration validates the general statement of principles that make up Michael Cannon's Anti-Universal Coverage Manifesto.
Last week, David Brooks--the New York Times columnists who, despite his putative conservative leanings, is more than delighted to throw rhetorical bouquets towards the general direction of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue--pointed out that the current bevy of health care reform legislation would do nothing to control costs. Among the other points he makes, Brooks highlights the fact that the lower administrative costs that will supposedly eventuate through the implementation of a public plan will do nothing whatsoever to drive down costs, since they do "not affect the fundamental incentives driving inflation." This is because "the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates,” according to--you guessed it--a CBO analysis of the plan provisions in the health care reform bill issued by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Quoting Brooks:
Keith Hennessey, the former chief of the National Economic Council, studied the HELP bill and wrote on his blog that aside from one provision, “I can find nothing that would provide information and incentives to consumers, medical professionals, health plans, employers or government to slow the growth of long-term private health care spending.”One may take issue with some of the solutions offered by Brooks to fix the fiscal mess we face because of rising health costs. But there is no denying the problem. And there is no denying that the health care reform bills we are seeing batted around the halls of Congress do nothing to fix that problem.
Wait, it gets worse.
The bills not only fail to reduce health care inflation, they make it harder to fix the larger fiscal mess later. They do that by taking the chits we could use to balance the overall budget and using them to cover the $1.3 trillion in new federal health spending.
The CBO report has clearly worried advocates of health care reform. Ezra Klein tries to promulgate "rules" concerning comments on CBO's findings, including the requirement that those who trumpet CBO's critiques on the issue of cost control also accept CBO's call for the elimination of tax breaks that support employer-provided health insurance, a public insurance option that can bargain at Medicare rates, allowing MedPAC to reform Medicare, support cost-sharing that will effectively ration care, and support cost-effectiveness of treatments, which will serve to set reimbursement rates. To which, the proper response is something along the lines of "No, Ezra, we don't have to accept these conclusions." These CBO proposals are given with the assumption that universal health care is a desirable goal. But it may not be. Rather, the desirable goal, as Cannon writes, may better be described as "making health care of ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people.," with the understanding that the policy consequences of universal coverage may not be desirable, that people ought to have the right to refuse health insurance, and that there are plenty of other--and better--ways to subsidize people who do not have health care.
Perhaps the worry of people like Klein is not limited to a mere CBO report, devastating though that report is. Perhaps the concern of universal coverage advocates also centers around the fact that for all of the hoopla surrounding health care reform, polls show that the American public is divided over the issue of reform. The political advantages enjoyed by the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are not nearly as pronounced or overwhelming as universal coverage advocates (the vast majority of them sympathizing with the Democratic party) thought they would be, and a significant number of Americans believe that neither their care, nor their pocketbooks will see much improvement in the aftermath of health care reform.
Sometimes, public skepticism is not justified by the facts. But in this case, the skepticism of the American people is borne out by the most serious of policy critiques, thus reinforcing public wariness. Health care reform advocates may try bluff and bluster to overcome public concerns. But with any luck, they will be forced instead to go back to the drawing board, and return with a better plan.
Politics News
More Disapprove Than Approve of Obama on Healthcare NEW
July 21, 2009
The latest USA Today/Gallup poll finds more Americans disapproving (50%) than approving (44%) of the way Barack Obama is handling healthcare policy. In general, Obama receives higher marks on his handling of international issues than on domestic issues.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
