@SinglePlayer then blocked me, typical for a leftist totalitarian.
RELATED: At Doug Ross, "New England Journal of Medicine Inadvertently Hands House GOP the Game Plan for Starving ObamaCare." If you can't completely kill it (right away), squeeze funding until implementation becomes impossible:
The ACA contains 64 specific authorizations to spend up to $105.6 billion and 51 general authorizations to spend “such sums as are necessary” over the period between 2010 and 2019. None of these funds will flow, however, unless Congress enacts specific appropriation bills. In addition, section 1005 of the ACA appropriated $1 billion to support the cost of implementation in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).... [and the] ACA appropriated nothing for the Internal Revenue Service, which must collect the information needed to compute subsidies and pay them. The ACA also provides unlimited funding for grants to states to support the creation of health insurance exchanges (section 1311). But states will also incur substantially increased administrative costs to enroll millions of newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries...And thank goodness. That would be like a symphony.
Without large additional appropriations, implementation will be crippled.
See Dr. Marc Siegel, "ObamaCare Will Clog America's Medical System":
ObamaCare was lauded by many for covering all Americans with pre-existing conditions. That's not the issue. We're going to get into trouble because of the kinds of coverage that the new law mandates. There are no brakes on the system. Co-pays and deductibles will be kept low, and preventive services will have no co-pays at all. That sounds like a good deal for patients, yes? But without at least a pause to consider necessity and/or cost, expect waiting times to increase, ERs to be clogged and longer lead times needed to make an appointment.Clogged emergency rooms, death-panel rationing, and reduced consumer choice.
Patients with new Medicaid cards who can't find a doctor will go where? To emergency rooms. The escalating costs of these visits (necessary and unnecessary) will be transferred directly to the American public, both in the form of taxes as well as escalating insurance premiums.
Beginning in 2014, insurance exchanges will be set up in every state so that individuals can choose a health insurance plan. This will help control costs, right? Wrong. Don't expect to find individually tailored plans or those with higher deductibles or co-pays. They won't be there because they can't receive the government stamp of approval.
In the new system, my patients will be able to see me as often as they'd like. But will they get the same level of care? I don't think so. I anticipate that more expensive chemotherapies and cardiac stents or transplants, for instance, will have a tougher time being approved, as is already the case in Canada.
Over on the public side, the new Independent Payment Advisory Board — established by the health reform law to "recommend proposals to limit Medicare spending growth" — will advise Medicare that some treatments are more essential and more cost-effective than others. I believe that value judgments inevitably will have to be made, reducing my options as a practicing physician. Private insurers will follow suit, as they often do.
During the battle over this reform, you often heard, even from President Obama, that you'd be able to keep the plan you have. What he didn't say — but what we now know — is that because of this new law, the private markets will have to remake their plans, that the costs will rise and that the plan you were told you could "keep" is in all likelihood no longer available. But when your plan changes, backers of reform will simply blame it on those evil private insurance companies.
The truth is, private health insurance is a low-profit industry, with profit margins of 4% compared with over 20% for major drug manufacturers. With the additional costs of no lifetime caps and no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, these companies will be compelled to raise their premiums in order to stay in business. The individual mandate is supposed to be the tradeoff by providing millions of new customers, but there is no guarantee that this additional volume will preserve profits with all the new regulations. This is what occurred in New York state in 1992, when a new law denied exclusion on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
That's what @SinglePayer is all about.
Other than non-white, non-paranoid and non-educated, the tweet was accurate!
ReplyDeleteHang in there....you usually hit the nail on the head and step on many people's feet. That probably hurt, if their not completely numbed...California will be requesting a bailout as will New York. they didn't learn and still want socialism.....Please Uncle....take care of me.....stay well.....
ReplyDeleteIf "Obamacare" was dependent on the cuts to be "deficit reducing,"
ReplyDeletecould negating the cuts betray the electorate?
"The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
has released the 2011 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule,
which includes a 23 percent cut to Medicare physician fees...
...Congress delayed a scheduled pay cut of around 20 percent in June.
Rachel Fields
Beckers Hosptial Review, November 04, 2010
.
.
Did the delay of the June pay cut alter the "affordability"
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),
and if so, who voted for both the initial legislation
and also voted to reverse the cuts making the law "affordable"?
.
.
"...The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary
...acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the [PPACA] bill
Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance
...could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020.
...the longer-term viability of the Medicare . . . reductions is doubtful."
wrote Richard Foster, Medicare's chief actuary"
Associated Press
.
.
Have the American people been lied to,
if the government passed a law that said X,
and those who voted for it did Y,
that made the "affordability" non-viable?
.
.
"...Neither the [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)] bill
...nor the accompanying reconciliation...
...addresses the flawed formula that dictates physician payments under Medicare
...a bill passed by the House in November would scrap the SGR altogether,
replacing it with a formula designed to ensure that doctors’ Medicare payments
reflect the true cost of delivering care.
Pricetag: $210 billion.
...it was that cost that caused Democrats,
who’d vowed both to keep their reform package below $1 trillion and to offset the entire tab
to strip the doc fix from the larger reform bills."
The issue has left Democrats in a pickle:
...with voters already weary of deficit spending,
[and/or borrowing] another $210 billion to fund a permanent fix."
Mike Lillis
Washington Independent
.
.
If Medicare Cuts
are what makes the recently passed Healthcare Legislation "deficit reducing"
and the 23% cut is not enacted in December,
how could those who voted for the legislation be considered
not guilty of misleeding the electorate?
.
.
From an email from some supporting the elimination of the cut:
"Is the new healthcare law accounting dependent on the 23% payment reduction?
If the can is kicked down the road,
does the math in the healthcare legislation become not operable?"
George Hartzman
The answer:
"That is how the administration officials explained it to us...
...Their numbers are based on the law as it stands,
and it currently stands that the cuts will occur.
I think you know the answer to your last question."
Lee Beadling
Managing Editor, Orthopedics Today
If "Obamacare" was dependent on the cuts to be "deficit reducing,"
ReplyDeletecould negating the cuts betray the electorate?
"The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
has released the 2011 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule,
which includes a 23 percent cut to Medicare physician fees...
...Congress delayed a scheduled pay cut of around 20 percent in June.
Rachel Fields
Beckers Hosptial Review, November 04, 2010
.
.
Did the delay of the June pay cut alter the "affordability"
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),
and if so, who voted for both the initial legislation
and also voted to reverse the cuts making the law "affordable"?
.
.
"...The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary
...acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the [PPACA] bill
Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance
...could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020.
...the longer-term viability of the Medicare . . . reductions is doubtful."
wrote Richard Foster, Medicare's chief actuary"
Associated Press
.
.
Have the American people been lied to,
if the government passed a law that said X,
and those who voted for it did Y,
that made the "affordability" non-viable?
.
.
"...Neither the [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)] bill
...nor the accompanying reconciliation...
...addresses the flawed formula that dictates physician payments under Medicare
...a bill passed by the House in November would scrap the SGR altogether,
replacing it with a formula designed to ensure that doctors’ Medicare payments
reflect the true cost of delivering care.
Pricetag: $210 billion.
...it was that cost that caused Democrats,
who’d vowed both to keep their reform package below $1 trillion and to offset the entire tab
to strip the doc fix from the larger reform bills."
The issue has left Democrats in a pickle:
...with voters already weary of deficit spending,
[and/or borrowing] another $210 billion to fund a permanent fix."
Mike Lillis
Washington Independent
.
.
If Medicare Cuts
are what makes the recently passed Healthcare Legislation "deficit reducing"
and the 23% cut is not enacted in December,
how could those who voted for the legislation be considered
not guilty of misleeding the electorate?
.
.
From an email from some supporting the elimination of the cut:
"Is the new healthcare law accounting dependent on the 23% payment reduction?
If the can is kicked down the road,
does the math in the healthcare legislation become not operable?"
George Hartzman
The answer:
"That is how the administration officials explained it to us...
...Their numbers are based on the law as it stands,
and it currently stands that the cuts will occur.
I think you know the answer to your last question."
Lee Beadling
Managing Editor, Orthopedics Today
hey, sent you a follow on twitter.
ReplyDeleteAsalamaTweetum