wapo, the globe, the times, the hill and bloomberg are hardly taking their points from sean and billo
Capitol Briefing - Senate votes to keep Medicare cuts
ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe
Senate passes 1-year doc fix - The Hill's Healthwatch
Budget Office Rebuts Democratic Claims on Medicare (Update1) - Bloomberg
Governors balk over what healthcare bill will cost states - The Boston Globe
and no one's gonna be drifiting away from anything, except maybe a couple dozen endangered dems
Repeal vote is just Republicans' first step on health care - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com
but even if, for the sake of argument, what you claim is true, it would only be because of the MORE THAN THREE QUARTERS OF A TRILLION DOLLARS OF NEW TAXES included in obamacare
Director's Blog » Blog Archive » Additional Information on CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2
more to the point---how do you expand medicare by millions while simultaneously cutting its already strained, over relied upon funding by another HALF TRIL (see wapo link above)Extrapolating the estimated budgetary effects of the original health care legislation and accounting for the effects of subsequent legislation, CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably yield, for the 2012-2021 period, a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion and a reduction in outlays in the vicinity of $540 billion, plus or minus the effects of forthcoming technical and economic changes to CBO’s and JCT’s projections.
Originally Posted by Kandahar
But as long as those two components are coupled together, the individual mandate will put the brakes on spiraling costs.
I would also expect fraudulent activity to go less noticed by insurance companies - since SIU activity is not considered part of health care expenses. In other words - they will cut back on investigating fraud so that it doesn't eat into the 10 % of premium dollars remaining after being required to sepnd 90% on health care. It will be much easier for the insurance company to just pay the claim and pass those costs on to the customers once the mandate goes into effect.
Last edited by buck; 01-20-11 at 04:58 PM.
why has hhs sebelius exempted hundreds of too bigs, including seiu locals, from obamacare's annual limits?
Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711 as of December 3, 2010
is it because she knows that if she doesn't the providers will DROP coverage, violating obama's most repeated pledge that we can keep our plans if we want em?
why must the too bigs need to flee?
why must hhs let em go?
why can't others leave if the seiu's can?
and what will ms sebelius say to the next 1000 who apply?
THIS bill is a pig
Federal Task Force On Preventive Care Faces New Challenge Under Health Law - Kaiser Health News
if it aint govt controlled health care, it's uncomfortably close
you don't spose COST of services will be one of the parameters considered by the preventive services task force, do you, either now or ten years from now?Under the new health care overhaul law, insurers will be required to pay fully for services that get an "A" or "B" recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. That's good news for patients, who will no longer face cost-sharing for these services, but it puts the group in the crosshairs of lobbyists and disease advocates eager to see their top priorities – including routine screening for Alzheimer’s disease, domestic violence, diabetes or HIV – become covered services.
"It's a wide-open door for lobbying," says Robert Laszewski, a health insurance industry consultant.
Under the new law, the task force could become a political lightning rod. If it doesn't recommend a service, insurers might not pay for it, and advocates might argue the decision is a barrier to care. If the panel does back a service – such as it did earlier this month when it suggested wider screening for osteoporosis – it might increase patients' access, as well as create new business opportunities.
The increased interest of advocates may conflict with the task force's tradition of scholarly dedication to the science. "If you want to be evidence-based, lobbying just doesn't fit," said Dr. Ned Calonge, the panel's chairman and the chief medical officer of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment.
But, sticking to the science hasn’t always been popular. The task force set off a political firestorm in November when -- seemingly oblivious to the political issues swirling around the health care debate – it said women should wait until 50, rather than 40, to begin getting routine mammograms.
Critics pounced on the proposal, saying the government would engage in health care rationing. Breast cancer activists also protested the change. The result: Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., inserted an amendment in the health care law to explicitly cover regular mammograms for women between 40 and 50.
Groups including the American Diabetes Association and General Electric, which manufactures equipment for mammography, also lobbied Congress for changes in the way the task force does business. The diabetes group won, for instance, a requirement in the law that the task force include in its reviews of evidence the guidelines drafted by specialty groups, language intended to help preserve diabetes coverage.
In response to the backlash over the mammography recommendation and other calls for transparency, the task force recently began accepting public comment before finalizing its recommendations. The comments may provide one tool for "people who are eager to figure out ways to influence the task force," said Paul Bonta, associate executive director of the American College of Preventive Medicine.
Calonge said the task force was "willing to take on such challenges as increased scrutiny may bring forward." He said that while the panel wouldn't change its recommendations just because of criticism, it would also not be "immune" to input that might add perspective to recommendations. But, he added, "the science needs to come first."
In the meantime, several disease groups are going directly to HHS to make their cases.
The diabetes association, for instance, is arguing to the department that the current task force guidelines – which call for screening for diabetes only when a patient has elevated blood pressure -- could become a barrier to care if insurers aren't required to provide even broader coverage. The HIV Medicine Association is making a similar argument. A two-page memo it delivered to the staff of the preventive services task force explains that one reason 20 percent of people with HIV don't know they are infected is that the service isn't reimbursed by most insurers. The task force could help with that problem, the memo said, by recommending routine screening, which insurers would have to cover. Currently the task force recommends tests only for people who are at risk. The requirements would not apply to some existing employer-based plans that that are exempted from many requirements of the health law.
cuz, if so, if it's not RATIONING, it's coming precariously close
Last edited by The Prof; 01-20-11 at 06:26 PM.
Senate Democrats push John Boehner on IRS rule - Shira Toeplitz - POLITICO.comThree Senate Democrats told House Speaker John Boehner they’re willing to repeal one piece of the health care law that they say could drown businesses in new Internal Revenue Service paperwork.
In a letter sent Thursday, Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Maria Cantwell of Washington and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota urged the House speaker to send the Senate a stand-alone measure on the tough reporting rule meant to generate revenue, which is widely unpopular among Republicans.
The three Democrats — all up for reelection in 2012 — are part of a larger bipartisan group of senators who have indicated they support repealing the measure, although Nelson, Cantwell and Klobuchar have specifically requested the House take it up first.
“We have heard from small-business men and women in our states who have voiced concern that this provision is burdensome and unnecessary and could potentially undermine our nation’s economic recovery,” they wrote, adding that they are “confident that the Senate can quickly act” on repealing the provision once the House passes it.
The rule will force businesses to fill out a tax document, called a 1099, every time they buy more than $600 worth of goods or services from anyone outside their company. It’s meant to give the IRS a better picture of individual taxable income.
Separate from Nelson, Klobuchar and Cantwell, Sen. Mike Johanns’s (R-Neb.) said he plans to introduce a bill Tuesday, when the Senate comes back into session, that would repeal the 1099 tax paperwork mandate.
Johanns’s bill currently has 25 co-sponsors, including three Democrats: Sens. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Mark Udall of Colorado, and his spokesman says he is is hopeful that others — including Nelson, Klobuchar and Cantwell — will sign on soon.
what do you think these half dozen defections portend?
Advocates react to Steny Hoyer?s Medicare warning - Brett Coughlin - POLITICO.comMedicare advocates are saying enough is enough to the news that House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer thinks Medicare may need further “adjustments.”
Asked by POLITICO whether Democrats could be counted on to protect Medicare benefits and act to control premium increases, Hoyer said this week that the political reality is that the program may need to save more money.
“It is our belief that you can — as was done in 1983 on Social Security — and as we are committed to doing, we can adjust Medicare provisions, and we can adjust those in the future, and perhaps we can make some adjustments for present recipients,” Hoyer said.
“We want to make sure that the benefits that are available to recipients, which they need, are protected, so within that context, just as we did with Social Security in 1983, we need to address Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, to ensure their continued availability and sustainability over the long term.”
“We’ve had many talks. He has to make the Blue Dogs happy. We’ve got a very good relationship, but we sometimes have to agree to disagree. I think he has become very conservative,” [barbara kennelly, former CT rep who has "worked with hoyer on social security and medicare issues since leaving congress] said.
Far from controlling premiums, the Affordable Care Act has already begun to increase them significantly for middle-class Americans on Medicare, and the future may promise more of the same, given the growing federal deficit.
An analysis released last month by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that, initially only 5 percent of Medicare-eligible Part B patients saw the increase in premiums [called for in the medicare modernization act], but by 2019 that percentage will nearly triple to 14 percent — that translates into 2.4 million patients now and 7.8 million patients in 2019. The actual Part B monthly premiums range from about $161.50 for those making $85,000, to $369.10 per month for patients in the top income brackets ($250,000 or more).
The Kaiser analysis also shows that the number of patients in the prescription drug program who will pay the increased premiums will triple from 3 percent (1.2 million patients) to 9 percent (4.2 million patients) in 2019.
As for health care reform, giving a man a fish would be using U.S. tax dollars to directly pay for every low-income families health care, which I don't agree with.
Teaching a man to fish would be revamping the health care system so that people with preexisting conditions, the elderly, and people of all incomes will be able to obtain better, more affordable health care for themselves, which Obama's reform did.
Selling the river to a private corporate fishing company is what conservatives want to do, they basically want to leave the entire health care industry under private ownership. The problem with this? When a corporate companies completely own the river and has no other objective than to make a profit, the fish become more expensive and yet also become less nutritious! This is proven by the fact that the U.S. is the only western, developed country left that maintains a private ownership of health care and we, coincidently, have the worst quality health care out of the 1st world countries and we also pay more than any other of them by far.
meanwhile, on substance, today:
House OKs first step of 'replace' - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.comFourteen Democrats joined all House Republicans to pass the first step in the “replace” part of the GOP’s “repeal and replace” plan for health care reform.
The House on Thursday approved a resolution directing four committees to work on alternatives to the health-care reform law Democrats passed last year. It passed 253-175.
Republicans say the resolution is just the start of the effort to reshape the Obama administration’s signature legislation. The House voted yesterday to repeal the entire law, but Senate Democrats have pledged to block that effort.
But the replacement process is more than just new legislation.
“The process starts with aggressive oversight of the current law, to understand what it’s doing,” said John Kline (R-Minn.), chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee.
To that end, the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Authority questioning its authority, structure and use of waivers to release consumers from some of the law’s provisions.
Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) also co-sponsored legislation introduced Thursday to allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines.
“I think one of the focuses needs to be getting the costs down in health care,” Camp said. “Polls show that people are most concerned about cost. Obviously if we can get more costs down, the opportunity to afford health care goes up and you get more coverage.”
i can't yet find the 14 dems who endorsed gop replacement planning
but i do know the 13 persons in party pelosi who voted AGAINST obamacare in march and also AGAINST boehner's repeal yesterday:
parker griffith from AL, larry kissell from NC, heath shuler from NC, ben chandler from KY, jason altmire and tim holden from PA, john barrow in GA, dan lipinski in IL, jim matheson from UT, mike mcintyre fromn NC, colin peterson in MN, artur davis in AL and dennis kucinich (whom politico called out last week as being endangered by gop redistricting in the buckeye state)
a number of these congressmen kept their seats by centimeters
if it weren't for the giffords tragedy, these unlucky 13 would have targets on their backs
as is, know that my side will be trying very seriously to defeat them and take their seats next time up
why, karl rove and norm coleman and dick morris, et al, will be raising and spending heavily on their challengers' behalfs
you can count on it
Last edited by The Prof; 01-20-11 at 09:46 PM.