Obama outlines health care plan for all - Page 28 - Big Big Forums

SurferGirl · 08-19-2009, 03:33 PM

http://www.gop.gov/blog/09/08/19/pro...-care-reform-a
Proposed Health Care Reform A Bureaucratic Nightmare
August 19, 2009 Print
Permalink
Share

From the office of Congressman Geoff Davis (KY):

Since House Democrats released their health reform legislation (H.R. 3200), Members of Congress and Americans alike have been reviewing the 1018 pages of complex legalese to determine whether this bill is the right prescription for working families and small businesses. Analysis has revealed a complicated web of new government bureaucracy and red tape that will dramatically impact health care coverage for every American.

H.R. 3200 undeniably increases government involvement in American health care. The bill creates over fifty new federal programs, agencies, and commissions that will expand the government’s role in health care decision-making by families and doctors. See the list of new agencies and programs here. Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX) and policy experts at the Joint Economic Committee developed a chart to illustrate the maze of new regulations and government involvement created by H.R. 3200. You can view the chart by clicking here.

Experts predict that the bureaucracy established by H.R. 3200 would inevitably force private insurers out of business, putting the U.S. on a path to a single-payer, government-run health care system. When all the other choices are eliminated, there is no competition and federal government would have control over your health care. The non-partisan Lewin Group projects that the government-run plan would result in as many as 114 million Americans losing their current health insurance coverage, including 106 million Americans who currently have employer-provided health care.

One of the central components of H.R. 3200 is a federal “Health Insurance Exchange.” Providing more information for Americans to comparison shop and make informed decisions is a good idea. However, the Exchange is much more than a “plan finder.” To be listed in the Exchange, a plan would first have to meet a slew of benefit mandates set by the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee.” Even if a plan satisfies those benefit mandates, they must still meet additional standards determined by the Commissioner of the Exchange. The Commissioner, who reports only to the President, is given near unilateral authority over the Exchange by H.R. 3200.

janelle · 08-19-2009, 03:42 PM

It's just like the plan to close GITMO. No real plan on how to implement it. No thinking ahead on what it will mean. Bunch of teenagers running the White House.

Jolie Rouge · 08-19-2009, 05:21 PM

White House: Obama would go to moon for his goal
1 hr 34 mins ago

WASHINGTON – How far is President Barack Obama willing to go for a deal on overhauling the health care system?

Try all the way to the moon.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs joked Wednesday that Obama would orbit the moon if he thought it would help get a deal on a bill Congress can vote on after it returns from summer break.

Three House committees and one Senate committee have voted out health care overhaul bills. A group of lawmakers on a fifth panel, the Senate Finance Committee, continue to negotiate on its version of the legislation. And arguments are everywhere.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/...hpdGVob3VzZW9i

and that would acomplish ... what ?

Jolie Rouge · 08-19-2009, 06:05 PM

surprise, surprise, surprise ......

Firms with Obama ties profit from health push
Sharon Theimer, Associated Press Writer
24 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.

Coalitions of interest groups running at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads hired GMMB, which worked for Obama's 2008 campaign and whose partners include a top Obama campaign strategist. They also hired AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by David Axelrod, a top adviser to Obama's campaign and now to the White House. AKPD did work for Obama's campaign, and Axelrod's son Michael and Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe work there.

The firms were hired by Americans for Stable Quality Care and its predecessor, Healthy Economy Now. Each was formed by a coalition of interests with big stakes in health care policy, including the drug maker lobby PhRMA, the American Medical Association, the Service Employees International Union and Families USA, which calls itself "The Voice for Health Care Consumers."

Their ads press for changes in health care policy. Healthy Economy Now made one of the same arguments that Obama does: that health care costs are delaying the country's economic recovery and that changes are needed if the economy is to rebound.

There is no evidence that Axelrod directly profited from the group's ads. Axelrod took steps to separate himself from AKPD when he joined Obama's White House. AKPD owes him $2 million from his stock sale and will make preset payments over four years, starting with $350,000 on Dec. 31, according to Axelrod's personal financial disclosure report.

A larger issue is a network of relationships and overlapping interests that resembles some seen in past administrations and could prove a problem as Obama tries to win the public over on health care and fulfill his promise to change the way Washington works, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog group.

"Even if these are obvious bedfellows and kind of standard PR maneuvers, it still stands to undercut Obama's credibility," Krumholz said. "The potential takeaway from the public is 'friends in cahoots to engineer a grass roots result.'"

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that Axelrod has had no communications with Healthy Economy Now or with Americans for Stable Quality Care, and his payments aren't affected by the ad contracts. Axelrod's son, a salaried AKPD employee, doesn't work with either coalition "or stand to benefit from that work," LaBolt said.

"David Axelrod has fully complied with the toughest-ever ethics rules for administration officials, including divesting from AKPD before the administration began," LaBolt said.

Ken Johnson, a PhRMA senior vice president, said GMMB and AKPD were the only two firms working on the $24 million in ads. He declined to reveal how much each was paid beyond saying that each received a small percentage of the total. The coalition's campaign team decided to hire the two firms, he said.

"In a perfect world, it's a distraction we don't need right now, but these are very gifted consultants who have done very good work," Johnson said. "And it's also important to remember that at the end of the day, the coalition partners determine the message."

Healthy Economy Now spokesman Jeremy Van Ess said the two firms were hired because "they are the best at what they do. Period." The coalition didn't seek approval or direction on any of its activities from the White House, said Van Ess, a partner in a consulting firm that has worked on Democratic Senate election activities and a former speechwriter for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

AKPD and GMMB both proudly proclaim their connections to Obama on their Web sites.

AKPD has a full page on Axelrod that includes pictures of Obama. In one photo, Obama hugs Plouffe on election night.

"We are deeply honored to have been part of Barack Obama's historic campaign to change America and the world," GMMB says on its Web site. GMMB's partners include Jim Margolis, a senior strategist for Obama's presidential campaign.

Both GMMB and AKPD also have worked for Democrats this year. The Democratic National Committee paid AKPD at least $106,000 for polling, media production, communication consulting and travel costs from February through April. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee paid GMMB roughly $75,000 from February through June for ads. And GMMB took in at least $9,000 this year from Senate leader Reid's political action committee for communications consulting.

On the Net: White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/...re_consultants

anyone ??

Jolie Rouge · 08-19-2009, 06:09 PM

Henry Waxman Goes Ballistic On Health Insurers [i]
they paid for the experience and I hope they enjoy it
Wednesday, August 19th at 3:25PM EDT

Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) have issued a letter to fifty of the nations largest health insurance providers asking for all manner of financial data.

Allegedly, this information request was made in a fit of picque, something Waxman is famous for in addition to his nasal foliage, because the health insurance companies have been actively lobbying against a bill designed to put them out of business.

Says the Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cap...l?hpid=topnews

Quote:

They requested detailed information on the compensation packages of the companies’ highest-paid employees, as well as information on the companies’ boards, conferences and events they sponsored, the profitability of the individual health-care products they sell and revenues earned through government programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Anyone who is surprised that Henry Waxman would do this simply hasn’t been paying attention for a couple of decades. And yes, I should be expressing shock and outrage over this totalitarian use of a very nebulous power to intimidate American companies. But in this particular case I’m going to make an exception.

In the 2008 election cycle health insurance companies donated $1.425M to Barack Hussein Obama, they donated $575,746 to Hillary Clinton. They gave $427,228 to John McCain. All told, health insurance companies gave 73% of all their contributions to Democrats. As far as I’m concerned I will fight against the nationalization of the health care industry on principle but I’ll not lift a finger to shield health insurance companies from the people they paid good money to elect.

Pass the popcorn.

:

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2009...alth-insurers/

Jolie Rouge · 08-19-2009, 06:25 PM

Today’s “Isn’t Government Run Health Grrrrrrreat!” Stories
Posted on August 19, 2009
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/08/1...rreat-stories/

While Obama and the Donkeys are working on ways to “go it alone,” meaning, “forget those troublesome Republicans, we need to spend our time wacking our Blue Dogs,” I wonder what is going on in the Wonderful World Of Single Payer?

Quote:

A young mother gave birth on a pavement outside a hospital after she was told to make her own way there.

Mother-of-three Carmen Blake called her midwife to ask for an ambulance when she went into labour unexpectedly with her fourth child.

But the 27-year-old claims she was refused an ambulance and told to walk the 100m from her house in Leicester to the city’s nearby Royal Infirmary.

Wait, it gets even better!

Quote:

Ms Blake said she started going into labour at about 7.15am on Sunday, August 2.

She said: “I phoned up the Royal Infirmary, it’s just across the road, and they said to go into a hot bath, and then to make my way over there.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ambulance.html

Now, I’m no baby doctor, but, if one is going into labor, I would think taking a hot bath might be secondary to GETTING TO THE HOSPITAL! I suppose, in Obama’s medical world, they would have a pill for that. Fortunately, mom and baby are doing OK.

:

I wonder how our friends to the north, who are already looking to perhaps include some privatization, are doing

Quote:

Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday.

Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million. http://www.vancouversun.com/story_pr...878506&sponsor

Doesn’t government run health care sound wonderful?

Puts costs over patients.

Jolie Rouge · 08-19-2009, 06:29 PM

[iWednesday, August 19, 2009[/i]
Beck Boycotters' Waterloo
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...-waterloo.html

Ed Morrissey at HotAir has the rundown on the faltering boycott of Glenn Beck's Fox News show. As predicted here, the failure of the boycott has numerous benefits.

What's more, the people pushing this boycott have stepped in it this time. There is no indication that Fox News will give in to the pressure. Fox News understands that this boycott nominally is against Beck, but really is against Fox News.

This is not the first boycott Fox News has broken. Remember when Democratic presidential candidates refused to appear on Fox News or allow Fox News to host a debate? Barack Obama eventually gave an interview to Bill O'Reilly, as McCain-Palin picked up steam.

In fact, Beck is planning a counter-attack against the organizers of the boycott when Beck returns from vacation next week. Beck and Fox News will use the boycott to expose the seamy side of the left-wing campaign against Fox News. The hunters will become the hunted.

Fox News will want to break this boycott to protect O'Reilly, Hannity and the franchise. The boycotters picked the wrong network.

Beyond that, the boycotters picked the wrong issue. Beck is not alleged to have made racist comments. This is not a Don Imus situation.

Rather, Beck allegedly made a false accusation of racism, which is so much a part of politics now that no one gets outraged anymore over it (except maybe me). So beyond the nutroots who have jumped on the bandwagon, the public is not going to be clamoring for Beck to be taken off the air. The boycotters picked the wrong issue.

Wrong network, wrong issue. Will this be the boycotters' Waterloo? Let's hope so, and that it also signals the end of the use of race as a political weapon.

UPDATE: Don Surber reports that the boycott has helped Beck's rating.

Jolie Rouge · 08-20-2009, 12:29 AM

Wednesday, August 19, 2009
VA bureaucrats to veterans: Maybe you'd be better off dead

This is simply evil.

The Death Book for Veterans by Jim Towey
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...107981718.html

Quote:

If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices" It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use.

Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."

The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to "shake the blues." There is a section which provocatively asks, "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'?" There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as "I can no longer contribute to my family's well being," "I am a severe financial burden on my family" and that the vet's situation "causes severe emotional burden for my family."

When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?

One can only imagine a soldier surviving the war in Iraq and returning without all of his limbs only to encounter a veteran's health-care system that seems intent on his surrender.

I was not surprised to learn that the VA panel of experts that sought to update "Your Life, Your Choices" between 2007-2008 did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. And as you might guess, only one organization was listed in the new version as a resource on advance directives: the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as "Compassion and Choices").

This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable. Worse, a July 2009 VA directive instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices." Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition—all patients. America's 24 million veterans deserve better.

Many years ago I created an advance care planning document called "Five Wishes" that is today the most widely used living will in America, with 13 million copies in national circulation. Unlike the VA's document, this one does not contain the standard bias to withdraw or withhold medical care. It meets the legal requirements of at least 43 states, and it runs exactly 12 pages.

After a decade of observing end-of-life discussions, I can attest to the great fear that many patients have, particularly those with few family members and financial resources. I lived and worked in an AIDS home in the mid-1980s and saw first-hand how the dying wanted more than health care—they wanted someone to care.

If President Obama is sincere in stating that he is not trying to cut costs by pressuring the disabled to forgo critical care, one good way to show that commitment is to walk two blocks from the Oval Office and pull the plug on "Your Life, Your Choices." He should make sure in the future that VA decisions are guided by values that treat the lives of our veterans as gifts, not burdens. [emphasis added]

Mr. Towey, president of Saint Vincent College, was director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives (2002-2006) and founder of the nonprofit Aging with Dignity.

I'd like to know exactly who is responsible for bringing this pamphlet back after the Bush admin removed it. Is there a Death Czar? I mean, a Death Czar per se?

Haven't looked at the whole thing yet, but see page 21: "What makes your life worth living?"

a. I can no longer walk but get around in a wheelchair.
b. I can no longer get outside—I spend all day at home.
c. I can no longer contribute to my family's well being.
d. I am in severe pain most of the time.
e. I have severe discomfort most of the time (such as
nausea, diarrhea, or shortness of breath).
f. I rely on a feeding tube to keep me alive.
g. I rely on a kidney dialysis machine to keep me alive.
h. I rely on a breathing machine to keep me alive.
i. I need someone to help take care of me all of time.
j. I can no longer control my bladder.
k. I can no longer control my bowels.
l. I live in a nursing home.
m. I can no longer think clearly-I am confused all the time.
n. I can no longer recognize family/friends
o. I can no longer talk and be understood by others.
p. My situation causes severe emotional burden for my
family (such as feeling worried or stressed all the time).
q. I am a severe financial burden on my family.
r. I cannot seem to “shake the blues.”

To the right of these statements is the heading, "Life like this would be:" and the choices:

difficult but acceptable
worth living, but just barely
not worth living
can't answer now

At the bottom of the page:

If you checked "worth living, but just barely" for more than one factor, would a combination of these factors make your life "not worth living?" If so, which factors?

If you checked "not worth living," does this mean that you would rather die than be kept alive?

I don't know whether to cry or be sick.

Comments welcome

http://www.punditandpundette.com/200...aybe-youd.html

oreo390 · 08-20-2009, 12:02 PM

This is horrible the very people that have fought for our freedom are now being councelled that they should put an end to their life? How sad that our country has come to this and how sad that our legislators apparently agree with this since they are allowing it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Wednesday, August 19, 2009
VA bureaucrats to veterans: Maybe you'd be better off dead

This is simply evil.

The Death Book for Veterans by Jim Towey
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...107981718.html

I don't know whether to cry or be sick.

Comments welcome

http://www.punditandpundette.com/200...aybe-youd.html

SurferGirl · 08-20-2009, 01:03 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cap...l?hpid=topnews
House Democrats Increase Pressure on Health Insurers

Reps. Henry Waxman (right) and Bart Stupak want a host of financial data from health-insurance companies. (The Washington Post/Bloomberg News)

By Ben Pershing
Two senior House Democrats are seeking a raft of financial figures from health-insurance companies, upping the ante as President Obama and his allies push to make the insurance industry's flaws a centerpiece of their campaign for health-care reform.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the panel's subcommittee on oversight and investigations, wrote letters Monday to more than 50 of the nation's largest insurers informing them that the committee "is examining executive compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry." They requested detailed information on the compensation packages of the companies' highest-paid employees, as well as information on the companies' boards, conferences and events they sponsored, the profitability of the individual health-care products they sell and revenues earned through government programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

The letters ask that much of the information be provided to the committee by Sept. 4, and the rest by Sept. 14. The House is scheduled to return from recess Sept. 8.

Obama and Democratic leaders on the Hill have sharpened their rhetoric against the insurance industry as the reform debate has progressed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) advised members of her caucus to focus on insurance companies' alleged misdeeds during the August recess, calling them the "villains" of the health-care system. The insurance industry, in turn, has said it supports reform generally but has been a primary opponent of elements of Obama's plan, particularly the public insurance option that is supported by liberals but now receives only tepid backing from the White House.

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, said the industry viewed the Waxman-Stupak letters as a "politically driven" distraction from more important issues.

"This is a fishing expedition," Zirkelbach said. "There has been an effort in recent weeks to shift the debate to focus on the health insurance industry rather than solutions on health care."

Both in his current post and his previous one as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Waxman has developed a reputation as a master of orchestrating high-profile hearings, often with representatives of major industries in the hot seat. It is not yet clear whether Waxman and Stupak intend to bring insurance company executives to Capitol Hill for similar grillings before banks of television cameras.

I think it's time for us to make the politicians account to the people for their spending, I would put Pelosi and some of the others especiall the "president" on a strick budget. It seems like there has been a constant attack on capitalism ever since the Marixt got illegally elected by the unions and ACORN

hesnothere · 08-20-2009, 02:09 PM

The states that have been most skeptical of President Barack Obama's agenda for health care reform also have some of the highest levels of uninsured people in the nation.

A new study by Gallup shows that large swaths of populations in the South and West -- anywhere from one-in-five to one-in-four individuals -- are currently lacking health insurance coverage.

These same regions also have the largest percentage of populations who believe widely perpetuated mistruths about the Obama agenda, including allegations that the president will set up "death panels" and wants a complete government takeover of the health care system.

According to Gallup, of the 25 states with the greatest percentage of the uninsured, all but three are based in the South or the Midwest.

LIST OF STATES WITH MOST UNINSURED

Texas - 27 percent of the population is uninsured New Mexico --- 25.6 percent Mississippi - 24 percent Louisiana - 22.4 percent Nevada - 22.2 percent Oklahoma - 22.2 percent (considered a Midwest state) California - 21 percent Wyoming - 20.7 percent Florida - 20.7 percent Georgia - 20.7 percent South Carolina - 20.4 percent Montana - 20.3 percent Alaska -- 20.2 percent Arkansas - 20.1 percent Colorado - 20 percent Oregon - 19.4 percent West Virginia - 19.3 percent (considered a Northeast state) North Carolina - 19.3 percent Idaho - 18.8 percent Utah - 18.1 percent Kentucky - 17.9 percent Tennessee - 17.8 percent Nebraska - 17.7 percent Alabama - 17.2 percent Missouri - 17.1 percent (considered a Midwest state)

STATES IN SOUTH AND WEST ARE AS FOLLOWS

South: FL, NC, SC, AL, MS, GA, VA, TN, KY, LA, AR, TX

West: NM, CA, OR, WA, AK, HI, MT, ID, UT, NV, AZ, WY, CO

Compare these findings to those pulled from a recent Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll, which showed that more people in the South and Midwest are prone to believe myths about Obama's health care plan than in other regions of the country.

In the South, 26 percent of the public said they believed the health care reform plan being considered by President Obama and Congress requires elderly patients to meet with government officials to discuss "end of life" options, including euthanasia. Twenty percent of Westerners said the same thing. In the Northeast and Midwest those numbers were 11 percent and 17 percent respectively.

Meanwhile, 45 percent of Southerners said they thought Obama's health care reform included a government takeover of the entire health care system. Twenty-three percent of Westerners agreed. In the Northeast and Midwest those numbers were 10 percent and 20 percent respectively.

That populations most in need of comprehensive insurance reform are most likely to buy into false criticisms of the president's plan is a fascinating window into the current state of the health care debate. Theoretically, the president should be receiving more support in his efforts to expand coverage from those who currently lack it. The opposite, however, seems to hold true.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122387/Un...spx?CSTS=alert

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_263988.html