Obamacare: The more you know, the more you dislike it

James Capretta:

"While it is true that the program is a massive entitlement, specifically designed to get the American middle class fully hooked on another expansive government benefit, Obamacare also — unlike the Medicare drug benefit — creates millions of losers. Democrats riddled it with budget gimmicks and sleights of hand to create the illusion of a fully financed program; but what it really does is redistribute resources within the health sector away from those who have good coverage today.

As millions of today’s happily insured citizens begin to find out that their current arrangements have been disrupted, and, in some cases, terminated, to pay for the Obama administration’s government-centric takeover, their views of Obamacare will only sour further."

Remember that "we have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it", as prevaricated by one the essential cogs of the most transparent administration in history's agenda.

Think that's bad? Just wait until all the nonsense in the new "financial reform" law becomes known. And just think of the secret delights Dems/Lefties/"Progressives" have in store for us with their renewed Cap 'n Trade, "net neutrality", "fairness doctrine", illegal immigrant amnesty, and VAT "enhancements" if we don't castrate their destructive agenda this November.

Meet Obama's (Ir)Ration(al) Man

...Donald Berwick, avowed universal health care cheerleader, and a supporter of health care rationing.

" 'Cynics beware, I am romantic about the (British) National Health Service; I love it," Berwick said in a July 2008 speech at England's Wembley stadium. 'All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country.'

While Berwick would not have the authority to impose a British health care system on the United States in one fell swoop, as head of CMS, he would be running both Medicare and Medicaid. Given that the two programs alone account for more than one out of every three dollars spent on health care in America (all government programs combined account for 47 percent), private players tend to follow CMS's lead. Berwick himself has made this point.

'(G)overnment is an extraordinarily important player in the American health care scene, and it has inescapable duties with respect to improvement of care, or we're not going to get improved care,' he said in a January 2005 interview with Health Affairs. 'Government remains a major purchaser.… So as CMS goes and as Medicaid goes, so goes the system.' "

.....and:

" '(T)he Holy Grail of universal coverage in the United States may remain out of reach unless, through rational collective action overriding some individual self-interest, we can reduce per capita costs,' Berwick wrote in an article for Health Affairs he co-authored in 2008.

He went on to write that, 'The hallmarks of proper financial management in a system… are government policies, purchasing contracts, or market mechanisms that lead to a cap on total spending, with strictly limited year-on-year growth targets.'"

Elections certainly do have consequences, don't they?

#

Health care "Reform": The Ends DO NOT Justify The Means

"The House can't approve the senate legislation by which it approves changes in the Senate bill."

Noteworthy:

"The Supreme Court might well hold that Field governs only questions of historical fact, while Munoz-Flores governs questions of constitutional interpretation. In Field, the question was what text passed the two houses of Congress; there was no doubt that only what the two houses passed could be treated as law. Here, by contrast, there will be no dispute about what occurred in the House; the question will be whether using a self-executing rule in this way is consistent with Article I, Section 7.

It is one thing for the Supreme Court to defer to Congress on questions of what Congress did, and quite another to defer to Congress on the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, in United States v. Ballin, decided the same year as Field, the Court ruled, 'The Constitution empowers each House to determine its own rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints . . '

One thing is sure: To proceed in this way creates an unnecessary risk that the legislation will be invalidated for violation of Article I, Section 7. Will wavering House members want to use this procedure when there is a nontrivial probability that the courts will render their political sacrifice wasted effort? To hazard that risk, the House leadership must have a powerful motive to avoid a straightforward vote."

#

More confirmation: Health care "reform" will cost more, reduce services

So says, "unofficially" of course, the Obama Administration itself, from analysts at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Noteworthy:

"A new report from government economic analysts at the Health and Human Services Department found that the nation's $2.5 trillion annual health care tab won't shrink under the Democratic blueprint that senators are debating. Instead, it would grow somewhat more rapidly than if Congress does nothing.

More troubling was the report's assessment that the Democrats' plan to squeeze Medicare for $493 billion over 10 years in savings relies on specific policy changes that 'may be unrealistic' and could lead to cuts in services. The Medicare savings are expected to cover about half the nearly $1 trillion, 10-year cost of expanding coverage to the uninsured.

In still more bad news, the report starkly warned that a new long-term care insurance plan included in the legislation could 'face a significant risk of failure' because it would attract people in poor health, leading to higher and higher premiums, and eventually triggering an 'insurance death spiral.' "

The Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" reaction?

Prediatable:

"Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., brushed that aside, pointing to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office that found the program would be solvent for 75 years."

Here's a question for you.

Who would you expect to have the more reliable assessment?

CBO, whose people have no particular real world operating experience in this field?

Or the HHS actuaries, who know all the ins and outs of how these things work in reality?

These "reform" rocket scientist cheerleaders are so heavily invested in their monstrous creation that the fail to see the death spiral they've created for their worldview and its agenda.

#

Now playing on the floor of the U.S. Senate

Hat tip: Patriot Post US.

#

Medicare cuts proposed under Pelosicare will lead to coverage crisis

Why don't they tell us something we didn't already know?

Noteworthy:

"The report offers the clearest and most authoritative assessment to date of the effect that Democratic health reform proposals would have on Medicare and Medicaid, the nation's largest public health programs. It analyzes the House bill, but the Senate is also expected to rely on hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts to finance the package that Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to take to the floor this week. Like the House, the Senate is expected to propose adding millions of people to Medicaid.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administers the two health-care programs. Foster's office acts as an independent technical adviser, serving both the administration and Congress. In that sense, it is similar to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which also has questioned the sustainability of proposed Medicare cuts.

In its most recent analysis of the House bill, the CBO noted that Medicare spending per beneficiary would have to grow at roughly half the rate it has over the past two decades to meet the measure's savings targets, a dramatic reduction that many budget and health policy experts consider unrealistic."

Of course, this information will fall on the deaf ears of the "Government Health Care Is The Answer" crowd.

They DON'T CARE how bad this thing is or how much it costs. They want it passed because they know that their Universal Health Care cherished Libthink agenda item will be an unstoppable conclusion once this hurdle is cleared.

The new political sign of the times

Let's give the sign a little perspective:




Add to that the excuses, rationales, and outright cognitive dissonance among Dems/Lefties/"Progressives over last Tuesday's election events.

Yet these Rocket Scientists expect the public to stand still for the rape and pillage inflicted by their health care "reform", and Cap 'n Trade monstrosities.

Exactly how stupid ARE these people?

Hat tip: PowerLine

#

Do YOU want to be dependent on the Political Class for health care?

Mike Pence talks about the dangers if we let the abomination of Obama/Pelosi/Reid Care become a reality



More on "The Worst Bill Ever":

"Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of 'change,' but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo.

Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated."

Instead of "The Worst Bill Ever", I think of this outrage as "The Worst Bull.... Ever".

#

Michelle Bachmann on ObamaPelosiCare

It's worse than you think.

MUCH worse.

Scene from today's Pelosi Public Option pep rally

Upset senior citizens were definitely not welcome.

This is a preview of what's to come in the next days and weeks.

Hat tip: John Goodman.

#

"Public Option" reality

Steve Chapman:

"If Medicare were a bank, federal regulators would be closing its doors, selling its operations and sacking its managers. Thanks to soaring costs, the program is fast running out of money -- even though it pays such low fees that many doctors refuse to take Medicare patients. Meanwhile, Medicare fraud costs taxpayers some $60 billion a year, according to a report by CBS's '60 Minutes,' making it among the most profitable fields for felons.

That's our experience with government-run health insurance for the elderly. So what do congressional Democrats propose to do? Offer government-run health insurance to everyone else."

Read the rest of the piece.

Speaking of reading things, I can almost guarantee that regardless of what they spring on us today, they will NOT let us read the whole thing.

The insanity of this is beyond rational comprehension.

UPDATE:

My, oh my! I was wrong.

Here's the disaster, all 1990 pdf pages of it.

This leads me to think some of the alternate theories about this were right. The Dems really don't expect this to be enacted, so the whole thing becomes a bone thrown the Looney Tooner Left's way.

By this evening, we should have all the horrid parts pretty well ready to expose for the bad stuff they represent. The response will be furious and overwhelming.

When the monstrosity ultimately dies it's deserved death, the Dems can then tell their fringe freaks "See? We tried! But those knuckle dragging conservatives and those eeeeeeeeevil insurance companies did us in!"

#

Candidate Obama on health care legislation transparency

From Don Surber.



Hat tip: Instapundit.

I guess this guy got kidnapped somewhere along the way, and was replaced with the impostor who's currently playing the role of President of the United States.

#

The Public Option? It's a mirage

.....says Robert Samuelson:

"In reality, the public plan, also known as the public option, is mostly an exercise in political avoidance: It pretends to control costs and improve access to quality care when it doesn't. "

The cost of mandates in health care "reform"

Tyler Cowen: "How Insurance Mandates Could Leave Many Worse Off"

Excerpts:

"The paradox is this: Reform advocates start with anecdotes about the underprivileged who are uninsured, then turn around and propose something that would hurt at least some members of that group...

....At this point, it seems more plausible that the cost of health insurance will keep rising, just as the costs of health care services have continued to climb. The upshot is that the burdens of mandatory purchase, the subsidy costs and the associated implicit marginal tax rates will all increase, eventually to the point of unsustainability.....

....As it stands, we’re on the verge of enacting a policy that is due to explode, penalizing many of the very people that it was ostensibly designed to help."

But let's not let little things like that stop us from making the incredibly stupid decision that Obama and his Idiocrats insist we must......

#

"Next!"

A glimpse at your future health care routine under a "public option".


Hat tip: Gateway Pundit.

#

"All of the President's 'fixes' will just create new problems"

"Obama's Doctor Shortage":

"By drastically increasing demand while doing little to increase primary care physician supply, ObamaCare will turn health care into a consumer nightmare: longer wait times, shorter visits, higher prices, and decreased customer satisfaction. The U.S. will have to rely increasingly on nurse practitioners and physician assistants to meet patient demand. According to the WHO, the nurse-to-physician ratio in Canada and the U.K. are 5.3 and 5.6, respectively, compared to 3.6 in the U.S. And as fewer bright young people pursue medicine due to the profession's general malaise and oppressive bureaucratic regulations, we're likely to see an even greater physician shortage---not just in primary care, but in specialty care as well."

Somehow, some way, the Idiocrats and their "regressive" pals never seem to get around to even considering things like this subject. In their zeal to get their beloved universal health care worldview agenda item rolling, they will say or do anything, regardless of the costs to our nation and to our people, but they'll never be honest about the consequences of their actions.

Do you think they would actually tell the truth about the ugly outrages contained in their version of health care "reform"?

#

The Nutroots are getting antsy over their beloved public option's fate

....as well they should be.

This post says the votes are not there to get the "Medicare For All" stupidity into the final House version.

Of course this could be all sandbagging, but it smells like desperation.

(Hat tip: Dan Riehl)

#

Medicare Advantage is doing EXACTLY what its critics say it doesn't do

It's controlling costs, upholding the quality of care, and it's avoiding hospitalizations of those who are enrolled:

"Medicare Advantage is not a perfect program, and there is serious discussion to cut funding to the program as a way to help pay for health care reform. But this analysis clearly demonstrates the program’s value – to the health care system and to Medicare Advantage enrollees. It also reinforces findings from a recent study by Massachusetts Health Quality Partners that, on certain clinical quality measures, Massachusetts seniors enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan receive better care than those in traditional fee-for-service plans. Medicare Advantage delivers on its promises: the right care at the right time, additional benefits beyond traditional Medicare, and greater care coordination between health plans and providers that helps enrollees remain as healthy as possible.

....But a decision to cut funding to the Medicare Advantage program means that, ultimately, Medicare beneficiaries’ benefits will be cut. If funding cuts are made, Medicare Advantage enrollees will be faced with higher premiums and/or reduced benefits. Since many of these enrollees are on fixed incomes (according to statistics from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation), any adjustments to their Social Security and/or pension benefits will be insufficient to cover their increased health care expenses."

If the Obamacare drumbeaters and "regressives" in general get their way, Medicare Advantage will be gone by 2012, as de-funding of the program is a big priority of those partisans. They know that private Medicare programs like this pose a direct threat to their beloved "public option'" "single payer health care", or any other name you would care to apply to programs that are designed to worsen the quality of care and increase its costs to everyone.

Already, many Medicare Advantage providers have opted out for the 2010 year coverage because of their disgust with they way "regressive" politics marginalizes their part in providing a valuable and essential service to many seniors.

Watch the pushback on this to be fast and furious. I know of one one local blogger and academic type whose main talking point against Medicare Advantage just got thoroughly discredited.

#

Mars attacks!

Imagine this conversation between two invading Martians intent on destroying Earth:

Martian # 1: We must destroy the Earthlings. But how?

Martian # 2: Why not let man-made global warming do it for us?

Martian # 1: Are you kidding? We do not have 100,000 years.

Martian # 2: Why not just wait for Earthlings to pass their Cap and Trade Climate Bills?

Martian # 1: Great idea! That way the energies of the planet remain preserved while the Earthlings quickly tax themselves to death.

Martian # 2: I think it would be a win-win for us.

Martian # 1: I agree. Hey, you want to watch a movie? I have my favorite sci-fi DVD with me, An Inconvenient Truth, starring Al Gore.

Martian # 2: I cannot right now. I have plans to beam down to the United States because I am in need of surgery. You know it is common knowledge that America provides the best medical care in the galaxy.

Martian # 1: But we Martians have good universal healthcare.

Martian # 2: Yeah, but good luck. I am presently on an eighty-year waiting list.

Martian # 1: But you do not have any Earthling American dollars to pay for surgery!

Martian # 2: That's not a problem. I don't need any. I'm an alien.

#

Enacting Obamacare means less access

Scott Atlas lays out the six major reasons why Obamacare is just wrong for the nation.

Number 1: Less access to timely health care, especially by trained specialists

Number 2: Less access to state-of-the-art drugs that are proven to cure serious diseases, like cancer

Number 3: Less access to modern medical technologies that lead to earlier diagnoses, safer treatments, and better outcomes

Number 4: Less access to choice of doctor and choice of treatments for patients and families

Number 5: Less access to choice of health insurance coverage

Number 6: Less access to the leading innovators and innovations in health care

His opening paragraph says it all:

"President Obama and the Democratic Congress repeat a mantra so often that it has become a truism: America's health care system is a scandalous failure, and it is absolutely urgent that we fix it now. The mainstream media nod their agreement, and yet, the polls tell us something else: Eighty percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the quality of their health care. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Americans, about three-fourths, are happy with their current health care coverage. (CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, March 2009; Gallup poll, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001; Quinnipiac University poll, October 2007)."

Read the rest of the details in the link.

Here's the expected Obama pushback.

Noteworthy:

"The problem for President Obama is that he and his allies want to pass an untested, government-heavy program — but without saying so.

Every bill now being drafted in Congress would establish a 'pay or play'-type choice for employers: Employers must either offer government-approved coverage to workers ('play') or pay a tax to the government instead to partially cover the costs of their premiums for insurance secured through a new 'exchange' system.

For years, Democrats have argued that this construct would ensure that reform 'builds upon' the employer-based insurance system. But, in fact, the Democratic approach to reform would have exactly the opposite effect. Employers would get burdened with new costs and insurance requirements, even as the government used price controls to offer a government-run insurance option with artificially low premiums and provided new subsidies for coverage only for workers getting insurance through the 'exchange.'

That’s a recipe for dismantling job-based insurance. The Lewin Group has estimated that, assuming certain plausible specifications, some 119 million people would end up leaving job-based coverage for a government-run plan as employers opted to 'pay' rather than 'play.'

Faced with incontrovertible evidence that he and his allies have no intention or ability to fulfill their commitment to Americans regarding their current coverage, President Obama decided today at his press conference to try to redefine the promise.

What he meant, he now says, is that the government wouldn’t force people out of their health-care plan. If tens of millions of people get pushed out of their current coverage, it would be because firms chose to drop their insurance plans — never mind the fact that they would do so based on the financial incentives the government put in place."

How utterly predictable this disaster of a president is turning out to be!

#