Thread: Obama outlines health care plan for all

CBS figures out Obama’s hollow calls for “bipartisanship”
Posted by: Sister Toldjah on February 10, 2010 at 11:59 am
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...ipartisanship/

CBS veteran journalist Mark Knoller reports today at the Political Hot Sheet blog http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02...y6191815.shtml the real meaning behind President Obama’s calls for “bipartisanship” going forward (via Memeorandum): http://www.memeorandum.com/100210/p18#a100210p18

Unannounced, President Obama took to the lectern in the White House briefing room today to give a personal readout of his meeting earlier with congressional leaders of both parties.

“Despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree, he said.

It was more a plaintive plea than a political observation. His top legislative priorities are going nowhere and he’s searching for a way to get them out of lockup.

In this 13th month of his presidency, he’s anxious to pass a jobs bill and be seen addressing an unemployment rate that only last week declined from double digits. And his efforts to enact bills on energy, financial regulatory reform and especially health care are stuck in Congress despite the solid majority his party holds in both chambers.

He’s appealing for a spirit of bipartisanship – urging Democrats and Republicans alike “to put aside matters of party for the good of the country.”

[...]

What these [past and present] presidential appeals for bipartisanship always mean is: do it my way.

Mr. Obama said he “won’t hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party.” But he wants his way. He wants his energy policy enacted along with his jobs bill, his financial regulatory reform and his health care plan.

And if the opposition continues to block his objectives, he said he “won’t hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that’s rooted not in substantive disagreement but in political expedience.”

When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its “obstinacy” and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his.

That’s true to a certain extent, but what Knoller doesn’t mention is the fact that Barack Obama’s entire presidential candidacy, more so than anyone else’s in modern history, was built on being an “agent of change,” a “bipartisan leader” who will “work with both sides” to get things done. Of course, close examinations at the time of his short time in the US Senate proved that to be a gross exaggeration (I’m being charitable) of the ‘facts’ but that didn’t stop his supporters both on the ground and in the mainstream press from pushing onward, gleefully and blindly paving the way for the first “articulate, clean” black President of the United States http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama , both because they thought he was a “cool” and “sexy” liberal http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...gonna-be-sick/ and, in the case of the MSM, also because they knew the election of the first black POTUS would be a cash cow for their struggling industry. http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...off-literally/

In fact, prior to Scott Brown’s upset win over Martha Coakley for the seat formerly held for decades by the late Ted Kennedy, the last six months or so of the year you rarely ever heard President Obama talk about “bipartisanship” and “working together” as you did during the first half of his term. The mask, it appeared, was slowly but surely crumbling off the face of the image he and his handlers had carefully constructed and projected for the last 3 years in attempts to deceive the voting public into thinking he was something he was not: An accomplished “bipartisan” leader and uniter – a healer. Then, his poll numbers started to tumble http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll and Scott Brown became Senator-elect Scott Brown – effectively meaning Obama had lost his supermajority in the Senate, and as a result the mask started being rebuilt as President Obama was forced to concede that the American people were growing tired of both hollow rhetoric and expensive promises whose checks would have to be cashed by Average Joes in the middle of a jobless “recovery.”

But while the mask is still being carefully crafted all over again by the Axelturf/Rahmbo/Fibbs axis, with the President dutifully making meaningless, contradictory speeches http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...t-nights-sotu/ and gestures http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...two-headlines/ on the issue of “working across the aisle,” let’s hope and pray that the American people will continue to open their eyes wider to see through these vain, bogus attempts at reinventing himself as a uniter, as normally reliably leftist MSM outlets like CBS finally, gradually appear to be doing.

The happy, fluffy promise of “hope and change” and a “new tomorrow” mesmerized into a prolonged drunken stupor a sizeable chunk of the American populace in 2008. More and more people are now realizing, though, that the party’s over and that the guest of honor was overpriced and overhpyed, and that it’s time to clean up the mess that both he and his party pals continue to make.

November cannot come soon enough.



Politico – They’re not laughing in the pressroom anymore http://www.politico.com/click/storie...dies_down.html



Does anyone remember so many calls for bipartisianship before the Mass. election?

Cram-downs, Constitutions And A Revolution Over Health Care Reform

I can't even voice the anger felt over the health care cram-down issue when becoming aware of it yesterday. By his own admission, Obama wants to "rebuild" America's economy not as a more or less free market system, but one that is primarily government controlled.

It features chapters devoted to the administration's attempt to "rebuild" the economy through health care legislation, clean-energy initiatives and measures aimed at boosting productivity growth.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...NewsCollection

Based on some reports, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=of...48890d3c90c6fc Health care spending is expected to be almost 18% of GDP by 2012. My first thought was, there is not enough civilian security in Washington, DC to hold back the mob that will descend if the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis tries to force this through. The anger likely to erupt across this country at such a willful abuse of power is not something any responsible official should want to encourage.

It will be historic, potentially dangerous in some ways, and far-reaching in consequence. Hopefully there are still enough responsible elected-adult officials in Washington to back away from such divisive, potentially destructive nonsense. In 2008, Obama said "I won!" In 2010, Scott Brown and the people won. The current congress and administration had better learn to deal with that. Or, the American people will deal with them.

Some follow-up to Instapundit noting an Examiner report indicating a cram-down may be in the works regarding the current health care reform legislation.

I’m not sure how much I believe this report, but if this happens, opponents will be justified in regarding the law as illegitimate.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/93613/

As DRJ points out at Patterico's blog: http://patterico.com/2010/02/11/health-care-tricks/

“Did you know that nine states have provisions in their constitutions for recalling elected officials, possibly including the senators and congressmen representing them in Washington?

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carniv...re-reform.html

"There's just no way to understate how huge the economic challenges facing the country this past year have been," CEA Chair Christina Romer told reporters Wednesday. "We certainly inherited an economy with a number of economic problems.""

But don't accuse them of blaming Bush. NOOO! He wants to "rebuild" the economy through health care legislation? And they have the nerve to call Republicans obstructionist? They have no model of success to point to, so isn't it someones duty to obstruct this train wreck?

A rate hike for the few — until it's you
BY Adam Geller, Ap National Writer
Sun Feb 14, 6:46 pm ET


To critics, a 39 percent hike in health insurance for some Californians foretells skyrocketing rates for the rest of us. Not so, says the company, arguing the increase only hits a relatively small number of people and the economy is to blame.

But the rhetoric from both sides distorts the reality.

It's true that hikes like the one by WellPoint Inc. apply only to people who buy individual insurance and are unlikely to spread to the majority of Americans covered through their employers. But such hikes also hit a huge number of Americans who mostly went unmentioned in the furor — the 46 million with no insurance at all.

That's because for most people who don't get insurance through their jobs and do not qualify for government assistance, the only option is buying individual policies like the ones in WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross plan, often with high deductibles.

Raise prices, and people without insurance are even less likely to buy it — healthy people especially. Meanwhile, older and sicker customers pay more and more, running up high health bills in a shrinking pool.

That conundrum is at the heart of a disagreement that has frozen Democratic health reform efforts in Congress. Reform bills would require most of the uninsured to buy coverage, an idea many Americans detest as heavy-handed government.

But without sharing costs across the broadest cross-section of consumers and prohibiting insurers from charging people different premiums depending on their health status, the result is a scenario very much like Anthem's.

"I know the American people get frustrated in debating something like health care because you get a whole bunch of different claims being made by different groups and different interests," President Barack Obama said earlier this week in addressing the Anthem hike. "But what is also true is that without some action on the part of Congress, it is very unlikely that we see any improvement in the current trajectory ... The current trajectory is more and more people are losing health care."

Anthem will postpone its plan to raise rates for some California residents who buy insurance on their own, after reaching a deal Saturday with state regulators. The new rates were supposed to start on March 1. Anthem will delay the hike until May 1, giving the state time to review the increase with the help of an outside consultant.

Only about 5 percent of non-elderly Americans have individual insurance, compared with 60 percent who are covered by their employers. The remainder is almost evenly divided between those whose care is shouldered by government and those without any insurance at all.

The cost of employer-sponsored health insurance at big companies rose 7 to 10 percent this year, said Tom Billet of Towers Watson, a benefits consulting firm. Preliminary estimates for next year call for roughly the same increase — much lower than the ones set out by Anthem and other individual insurers.

"The individual market is sort of its own animal, so to speak," he said.

At first glance, WellPoint's rate hike affects only a small group — some of the 800,000 people in California who buy its individual coverage. But it's also about many more, since just about any American is — or, given the uncertainties of the economy, can be — a candidate for individual coverage at any time.

Millions in group plans have lost jobs and the insurance they count on as a benefit. People in individual plans are trying to keep up with escalating premiums. Some without insurance do so to save money, but as they get older may decide it's not worth the risk.

WellPoint defended the hike as a response to the economy. More consumers are tight on money and, as a result, those who are younger and healthier are dropping out or taking on pass on individual insurance, leaving a pool of less healthy people requiring more costly care. Without younger, healthier consumers, Anthem said, the remaining customers had to shoulder the costs of their own care.

"The result is an insured pool that utilizes significantly more services per individual than under better economic times," the company wrote in a letter sent to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, defending the hike.

"The economic thing makes some sense, no doubt about it," said Gary Claxton, an expert on the private insurance market at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "If people don't have as much money they're not going to be as many people who can afford to buy insurance ... and the ones who are more likely to do that will always be the healthier ones."

But Will Dow, a professor of health economics at the University of California, says the rate hike reflects an individual insurance market that is fundamentally broken. Anthem has a reputation for cherry-picking healthier consumers and trying to shake sicker ones, he said.

"Individuals who are in ill health and don't have access to an employer-provided health insurance policy are subject to the mercies of this market, which does not work well for sick people," Dow said.

That problem is not limited to California or the economic environment of 2010. In Oregon, multiple insurers have convinced state health officials that rising costs justified big jumps in rates the last few years. In Maine, Anthem's request to raise rates for some people by up to 38 percent last year and 24 percent this year have angered some politicians and consumers.

Lou Herchenroeder, a pastor in Westfield, Ind., who learned in December that the premium on his Anthem policy would jump 31 percent, is frustrated. He said he's seen increases like this a few times over the past six years. In fact, he got into the high-deductible plan two years ago because premiums in his other plan rose too much.

But the cumulative increases are taking their toll. Herchenroeder said his family is healthy, with no chronic conditions like diabetes or high blood pressure, although he just had his gall bladder removed. But at 53, he yearns for the days when insurance was a choice he could afford.

"If I was in my 20s, I wouldn't have a plan like this," he said. "I'd take my chances."

But the sick don't really have the option of dropping coverage. Pre-existing conditions allow other insurers, who otherwise would provide competition, to decline to cover these individuals.

Jeanne Morales of Encino, Calif., was outraged when United HealthCare Inc. jacked up the premium of the PacifiCare individual plan covering her and her husband. Back-to-back hikes in October and November raised the couple's monthly premium from about $1,450 month to $2,432, a combined increase of 68 percent.

Morales wants to drop the policy, but says there's no where else to go. She had a partial hysterectomy to remove a non-cancerous ovarian cyst a month ago. She said her insurance broker told her she has to wait at least a year to be symptom free before she can even think about finding another individual insurance product. "That's all there is to do. There's just not any choices," she said. "We have thought about just not carrying insurance at all, but it's scary for us."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100214/...JhdGVoaWtlZm9y

yep, get rid of all the incumbents, and elect all new, make sure there is a good mix of parties though so no one party can dictate what will be done. That would shake Washington up and maybe they would work for the people instead of for themselves.

Zogby Poll Shows Americans Unwilling to Pay Higher Taxes to Insure Everybody
By Philip Klein on 2.16.10 @ 12:53PM

This morning, I spoke on a panel reacting to a new health care poll conducted by Zogby International in conjunction with the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. While John Zogby and Ward Casscells of the University of Texas saw the results as offering a way forward on health care, along with other panelists, I felt that it actually showed why we can expect more gridlock.

Like other polls, the Zogby results suggest that Americans like some of the individual components of the legislation -- covering those with preexisting conditions, preventing insurers from dropping coverage when people get sick, creating health insurance exchanges, etc. But at the same time, about 80 percent of people were at least somewhat satisfied with their current insurance, and were unwilling to accept the tradeoffs necessary to achieve the measures they support.

For instance, asked how much money in higher taxes they'd be willing to pay so that everybody can gain health coverage, the most popular response was "zero" -- which was the answer of about 43 percent. Just 12 percent said they'd be willing to pay more than $500 a year in extra taxes. In addition, less than 17 percent supported cutting Medicare as a way to pay for the legislation, and under 19 percent favored requiring people to purchase insurance (necessary if you're going to force insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions). Of course, as we all know, the Democratic health care bills are financed by raising taxes and cutting Medicare, and include an individual mandate.

So it isn't surprising that the poll showed that Americans opposed the health care legislation by a 51 percent to 40 percent margin. More tellingly, the intensity was on the side of the opponents, with 43 percent saying they "strongly oppose" the bill compared to just 20 percent who say they "strongly support" it.

None of the members of the panel thought that a comprehensive health care bill would pass this year. (Other than me, the panel included the Hill's Jeffrey Young, Slate's Tim Noah and Tom Scully, who helmed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Bush and helped pass the prescription drug benefit).

UPDATE: Here is Young on the poll. He notes that most Americans say that Congress should start over. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...alth-poll-says

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/16...-americans-unw

Pay-go, no-go
February 17, 2010 09:26 AM

You knew this was going to happen. Just like President Obama’s fantasy-land budget freeze, the new congressional pay-as-you-go law is more loophole-ridden than an Olympic volleyball net.

Via The Hill (h/t Steve Bartin): http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/8...-gets-bypassed

The ink is barely dry on the pay-as-you-go law, and Democrats are seeking to bypass it to enact parts of their job-creation agenda.

Democratic leaders said extensions of unemployment insurance and COBRA healthcare benefits should be emergency spending that isn’t subject to the pay-as-you-go statute, which requires new non-discretionary spending to be offset with spending cuts or tax increases.

Remember: They never let a manufactured “emergency” go to waste. The age of Obama is an age of routine circumvention in the name of perpetual crisis.

Originally Posted by On February 17th, 2010 at 9:31 am, et

Pay-go sounds like a typical democrat vote buying plan.

#2On February 17th, 2010 at 9:35 am, b-cat]
The politicians don’t obey laws, especially not their own.
Laws are for the peasants.[/quote]

Originally Posted by On February 17th, 2010 at 9:52 am, swede

...the new congressional pay-as-you-go law is more loophole-ridden than an Olympic volleyball net.

What was the point in the first place? These geniuses told us Obamacare would be “deficit neutral”. Whatever crap they want to pass will just be accompanied by fantasy land funding figures, and the reality wont hit the fan until after the fall elections.

Originally Posted by On February 17th, 2010 at 10:17 am, ThackerAgency

The COBRA subsidy that has been in place for a year now has dramatically affected my business.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, it has INCREASED THE COST OF HEALTH CARE SINGLE HANDEDLY.

Let me explain why in simple terms.

COBRA rates for individuals are determined by the TAX FREE health insurance plans from the employer that they left. Since they are tax free, insurance companies charge MORE for these benefit packages.

When someone gets COBRA, they keep the same plan they had but they pay for it. The SUBSIDY from the government pays 65% of their insurance plan -FROM THE IRS TO PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

MANY people do not need the amount of insurance their employer was providing for them. In fact, many of them could get a plan that is 25% of the cost of COBRA that would cover them as much as they needed.

So this subsidy is coming from TAX DOLLARS and going to INSURANCE COMPANIES. What incentive does an insurance company have to lower rates when they know that the government will continue to pay 65% of it. (many insurance companies see that subsidy as a reason to raise rates by 65%).

This subsidy shows a LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of the health care market and the insurance market. It also shows the inability of the federal government to make a sound fiscal decision.

I still do VERY VERY WELL because I help people save money on health care (not commissions or committees or studies, I actually help people one-by-one determine how to save money. . . without giving them other peoples’ money like the government does.

Insurance is tedious and boring. But it is also a financial instrument and math. This COBRA subsidy has done more to increase the cost of health care than anything any insurance company has done in 30 years.

Nobody will report it because they don’t understand it. I’m certain I haven’t explained it well. But understand that the only thing the subsidy does is enrich insurance companies, spend tax dollars and increase the cost of health care for everyone.

Originally Posted by On February 17th, 2010 at 10:36 am, les

Originally Posted by On February 17th, 2010 at 10:17 am, ThackerAgency

…….In fact, many of them could get a plan that is 25% of the cost of COBRA that would cover them as much as they needed……….

I have five friends/family members who have lost their jobs within the last 18 months and have gone on COBRA. Each and every one has seen their insurance premiums go up from 100 to 300% with COBRA. So, how can you get people insurance for 1/4 of COBRA’s costs?

And what do you say to my mid 50’s friend who had a stroke a few years ago and has been trying to find insurance and can’t. Or my mid 50’s friend who is a breast cancer survivor who’s terrified of when her COBRA runs out and she can’t get insurance. Care to offer them tips on how to find insurance?

Originally Posted by On February 17th, 2010 at 10:44 am, ThackerAgency

les,

I do this every day, all day long.

This is what they do to justify the expense. They trot out someone who has had a stroke or cancer in a state without a high risk pool (about 35 states have a high risk pool from the state government).

But the subsidy is for everyone, even the most healthy. It is a shotgun approach that increases the cost for everyone.

People don’t need cadillac plans to be healthy. All you really need is catastrophic coverage for the major hospitalizations and surgeries.

Again, people are shocked when they get the COBRA bill after they are fired. They call me, I tell them a quote and they ask me ‘how come you can get me insurance so cheaply at $400/mo’. I say, 400 dollars ain’t cheap where I’m from and it’s all the insurance you need. But 400 for my plan is cheap because COBRA was asking 1200 dollars a month.

The subsidy is a shotgun approach because it uses other people’s money. It does help people who are sick (for 18 months) and are in a state that doesn’t have a high risk pool. . . they should petition their state insurance commissioner to get on the ball (they elect him/her).

The amount of people that need it doesn’t justify the amount of money wasted on people who don’t. But they don’t care because it isn’t their money.

Their solution is to spend as much money as possible. I assure you that the insurance companies like it.

Wouldn’t you like to sell a product that the government pays 65% of it? Would you raise or lower your rates knowing the government guarantees payment?

Originally Posted by #21On February 17th, 2010 at 10:52 am, les

ThackerAgency, so are you saying you can get a 50’s aged person who had a stroke and a 50’s age person who had breast cancer insurance coverage for a fraction of their COBRA costs that will not exclude anything tied to their prior illinesses?

Originally Posted by #22On February 17th, 2010 at 11:02 am, ThackerAgency

les, I’m saying that the people who are sick do benefit from COBRA if they live in a state that doesn’t have a high risk pool. You yourself said your friend was worried about what would happen to her when COBRA ended in 18 months. . . the subsidy won’t help her then either (but there are likely other programs to help these people at the state level).

But COBRA rates are based on the most expensive insurance plans because company plans are NOT taxed and they don’t turn anyone down due to health history.

Les, I’m saying that the subsidy is important for some sick people, but it is available to EVERYONE regardless of whether or not they need it. The federal government is incapable of targeting the people who need it.

EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. That’s why I work with people one-on-one. You tell me the state, I’ll give you a link to help the sick people.

This is a one size fits all solution from DC. But anyone who is healthy gets this subsidy too that you pay for in taxes. . . AND increased premium because of the windfall for insurance companies.

Originally Posted by #23On February 17th, 2010 at 11:02 am, RedDog

Wow.
This is a Statist Administration and Congress that is simultaneously out of control and grossly incompetent. No thinking civic-minded American can have any confidence whatsoever in the Federal government now. This is misfeasance on a colossal scale.

When does it end?

Pay-go: The next expiration date has arrived
posted at 10:55 am on February 17, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

These expiration dates are coming faster and faster in Barack Obama’s presidency. http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

Five days ago, Obama signed pay-go legislation passed by the Democrats in Congress as part of the bill that raised the debt limit by $1.4 trillion. http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...r-debt-ceiling

Today, Obama and the Democrats are trying to find ways around it: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/8...-gets-bypassed

The ink is barely dry on the pay-as-you-go law, and Democrats are seeking to bypass it to enact parts of their job-creation agenda.

Democratic leaders said extensions of unemployment insurance and COBRA healthcare benefits should be emergency spending that isn’t subject to the pay-as-you-go statute, which requires new non-discretionary spending to be offset with spending cuts or tax increases.

With current extensions of unemployment and COBRA benefits set to expire at the end of the month and the jobless rate still near 10 percent, Democratic lawmakers want to pass the extensions quickly, without having to find offsets for the costs.

This year, facing record deficits and a debt that has exceeded $12 trillion, Democrats touted the new pay-go requirements as a necessary step to get spending under wraps. President Barack Obama signed the pay-go bill into law on Feb. 12 and Democrats are ready to waive those requirements to help get the economy going.

This is why efforts like pay-go are nothing more than a farce, and usually a fraud. The entire point of pay-go is to keep Congress from spending money it’s not receiving.

Carving out exceptions to spend more money demonstrates the ineffectiveness of pay-go to slow down spending.

However, it will be very effective for what Democrats have planned: raising taxes. They will use the rule to argue later that the additional spending will require tax hikes, and that the issue is out of their hands thanks to the pay-go law. It’s a dodge used to deny responsibility for their actions, much like the bipartisan budget commission that President Obama will create tomorrow, according to Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1624277620100216

All Obama promises come with expiration dates. Now, apparently, so do laws.

Originally Posted by capejasmine on February 17, 2010 at 11:05 AM

How about instead, we downsize governent? The Obama’s can eat hamburger, and other foods, the way the rest of us have to. Budget the food bills. The exception would be state dinners. All parties should be on Barack, and Michelle’s dime.

Let’s lose some czars as well. I think cabinet heads, and their staff are perfectly capable of handling things without adding more to the mix. Also…does Michelle REALLY need 26 assistants? Really? If she could make do without before becoming FLOTUS, she can make do with 5 to 7 now. Anymore than that, and she’s in diva territory…and when so many are without jobs, she acts as if she’s Queen of England.

Want to teach the girls some good ethics? Have them mop a floor, or wash a window. Chores like that are good for kids, and shows them…not every job is a cushy job. Barack, you may want to get in on some of that too, since it seems you’ve never really gotten your hands dirty in your life.

Originally Posted by Doughboy on February 17, 2010 at 11:06 AM

However, it will be very effective for what Democrats have planned: raising taxes. They will use the rule to argue later that the additional spending will require tax hikes, and that the issue is out of their hands thanks to the pay-go law. It’s a dodge used to deny responsibility for their actions, much like the bipartisan budget commission that President Obama will create tomorrow, according to Reuters.

I keep hearing this, but it makes no sense. If Obama and the Dems raise taxes, the voters will blame them. Not the GOP. Not some anonymous deficit reduction commission. Not George W. Bush. Not Sarah Palin.

It’s political suicide. Not to mention economic as well since it’ll stifle what little growth there is.

Originally Posted by Johnnyreb on February 17, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Just remember folks, in less than 10 years 80% of all Federal revenues will be eaten up by debt servicing, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, just those three items. If anyone does not think there aren’t massive tax hikes around the corner, they are not being honest.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats have the will to fix the disaster that we are heading right into with our eyes wide open. Every single politician in DC is deathly afraid of even suggesting a solution to any of these problems for fear of not being reelected. Don’t get me wrong, there are solutions to each of these problems, but they will never be even discussed in DC.

Originally Posted by Rovin on February 17, 2010 at 11:14 AM

No other administration has ever had the ability to move the goal post as this one with utter disregard to our constitution and the rule of law. Ethics? They have none.

HHS warns of double-digit spike in health premiums
By Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer
1 hr 50 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Eye-popping health insurance premium increases of up to 39 percent are a worrisome sign of the times, the Obama administration said in a report Thursday as it tried to tap public frustration with high costs to revive the stalemated effort to overhaul health care.

Proposed premium increases by WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross for Californians purchasing their own coverage set off a wave of criticism and forced the company last week to announce a postponement. Now, the Health and Human Services Department says similar pressure on premiums is being felt in at least six other states.

"This shocking increase isn't unique," said the report, being presented by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a news conference Thursday. "Across the country, families have seen their premiums skyrocket in recent years, and experts predict these increases will continue."

With his drive for health care overhaul bogged down, President Barack Obama has seized on the Anthem premium increases as Exhibit A to make his case for sweeping change before a bipartisan White House summit next week. California officials say 700,000 households face increases averaging 25 percent overall and as high as 39 percent for some.

In a briefing for reporters, WellPoint executives blamed their rate increases on rising medical costs and a pool of customers that is gradually becoming older and sicker as younger, healthier people drop their coverage. They insisted that their rate increases are little different from those charged by competitors.

"We understand this is a hardship," said Brian Sassi, president and CEO of WellPoint's consumer-business unit. "This is not something we voluntarily choose to do."

The HHS report found that the Anthem numbers are in line with increases sought by insurers in other states — at a time of robust profit growth for the companies and a lack of competition in most states.

For example, Anthem in Maine was denied an 18.5 percent increase last year and is now requesting that state regulators approve a 23 percent rise. Maine is home to Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Republican moderates whose support Obama would like to have for his health care legislation.

Michigan's Blue Cross Blue Shield plan requested approval for premium increases of 56 percent in 2009. And in the state of Washington, rates for some individual health plans increased by up to 40 percent until regulators cracked down.

Other states cited in the report were Connecticut, Oregon and Rhode Island.

The premium increases affect the most vulnerable part of the health insurance market, policies marketed individually to customers buying their own plans. According to the Census Bureau, only about 9 percent of Americans purchase coverage directly, while nearly 60 percent are covered under employer plans. Family premiums for those with workplace coverage rose 5 percent last year, even as inflation fell 1 percent, but nowhere near the rates seen in the individual market.

The health care legislation pending in Congress aims mainly to address the insurance problems of individuals and small businesses. While requiring most Americans to carry coverage, it would provide subsidies to make premiums more affordable. It would also create a new kind of insurance supermarket for individuals and small businesses, offering a range of competitive plans comparable to what federal employees have.

Insurers say the push for higher premiums reflects supply and demand. Medical costs keep going up, even in a weak economy. Many healthy people are dropping coverage or switching to bare-bones policies to keep their bills down. That leaves a higher proportion of people with health problems in the risk pool, forcing the steep rate increases.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100218/...hzd2FybnNvZmRv

NYT Admits Conservatives Are Right About Government Healthcare
posted at 8:50 am on February 19, 2010 by Laura [/i]
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...nt-healthcare/

In contrast to their editorials supporting the expansion of Medicaid http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/op...pagewanted=all this NYT article unwittingly supports several key conservative arguments against government health care: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us...9medicaid.html

We’re already at the breaking point, and the nation cannot afford for the Democrats to add more people to the government health care rolls:

Facing relentless fiscal pressure and exploding demand for government health care, virtually every state is making or considering substantial cuts in Medicaid, even as Democrats push to add 15 million people to the rolls.

It’s unfair to doctors. If we push them too far they will opt out of the system:

The Medicaid program already pays doctors and hospitals at levels well below those of Medicare and private insurance, and often below actual costs. Large numbers of doctors, therefore, do not accept Medicaid patients, and cuts may further discourage participation in the program, which primarily serves low-income children, disabled adults and nursing home residents.

… Dr. Beck said that over eight months last year, his practice wrote off $36,000 in losses from treating 17 Medicaid patients. The state-imposed payment cut, he said, was “the final straw.”

“I’m out, I’m done,” Dr. Beck said in a telephone interview. “I didn’t want to. I want to take care of people. But I also have three children and many employees to take care of.”

It will result in rationing services:

Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, is proposing the largest cuts in the history of TennCare, his state’s Medicaid program. To trim 9 percent of the TennCare budget, he would establish a $10,000 cap on inpatient hospital services for nonpregnant adults and would limit coverage of X-rays, laboratory services and doctor’s office visits.

What’s missing from the article: the typical “Obamacare will cure all our ills” gloss over the very real problems with health care delivery by the government. Even better, it once again puts the lie to the concept of “free health care.” No matter who delivers it, health care costs money and it is a limited resource. While the insurance companies are demonized for denying claims, Medicare denies them at nearly double the average of private insurers: http://biggovernment.com/ptuohe/2009...h-care-claims/

The number of Democrats pushing for the public option is growing http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/1...-now-up-to-16/ but now is not the time to compromise on fighting for the real reforms proposed by the GOP. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/2...rm-bill-today/ Newt Gingrich may be feeling hopeful that the President will work in an open, bipartisan manner on new legislation” but Obama will not change his stance. http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...964804,00.html He’s said it repeatedly: he wants single payer. http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck...sistent_in.php And many on the left have openly admitted that the public option is the path to single payer. http://www.verumserum.com/?p=9711

If Democrats want to ram it through – and it seems they do – in spite of the facts that even the New York Times is now reporting, then let them do it without the cover of bipartisanship. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-public-option