Thread: Obama outlines health care plan for all

actually jolie, you posted the #666 (permalink)

nooooooo ...



AT&T will take $1B non-cash charge for health care
Barbara Ortutay, Ap Technology Writer – 1 hr 43 mins ago

NEW YORK – AT&T Inc. will take a $1 billion non-cash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and may cut benefits it offers to current and retired workers.

The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, AK Steel Corp., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Barack Obama signed Tuesday will raise their expenses. On Friday, 3M Co. said it will also take a charge of $85 million to $90 million.

All five are smaller than AT&T, and their combined charges are less than half of the $1 billion that AT&T is planning. The $1 billion is a third of AT&T's most recent quarterly earnings. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company earned $3 billion on revenue of $30.9 billion.

AT&T said Friday that the charge reflects changes to how Medicare subsidies are taxed. Companies say the health care overhaul will require them to start paying taxes next year on a subsidy they receive for retiree drug coverage.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that the tax law closed a loophole.

Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits — including the subsidies — from their taxable income.

The new law allows companies to only deduct the 72 percent they spent.

AT&T also said Friday that it is looking into changing the health care benefits it offers because of the new law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.

Changes to benefits are unlikely to take effect immediately. Rather, the issue would most likely come up as part of contract negotiations between the company and unions representing its employees and retirees. AT&T is the largest private employer of union workers in the U.S.

Candice Johnson, spokeswoman for the Communications Workers of America, which represents more than 160,000 AT&T workers, said these employees have contracts in place until 2012. An agreement covering retirees also runs through 2012.

AT&T rival Verizon Communications Inc. was among 10 companies that sent a letter to congressional leaders in December warning that their costs would increase with the health care changes. Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis said the company had no comment.

Also on Friday, Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said they are asking the CEOs of Caterpillar, Verizon, Deere and others to testify at an April 21 House subcommittee hearing on claims that the health care law could hurt their ability to provide health insurance to workers.

Shares in AT&T, which is based in Dallas, climbed 9 cents to close Friday at $26.24.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/...dpbGx0YWtlMQ--

Tanning tax in health care law spurs wide dissent
Fri Mar 26, 3:33 pm ET

One provision in the mammoth law revamping health care in America has a number of key constituencies blanching: a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning treatments.

Maybe lawmakers were hoping the tax would sneak by the public, since it's slated to kick in during peak tanning season, on July 1 of this year.

The proposed tax first cropped up in December, after a bid to institute taxes on Botox treatments and breast implants was deemed to fall too disproportionately on women. Backers of the tax say it will simultaneously defray costs of the health care makeover — to the tune of $940 billion over the next decade — and discourage wider use of tanning beds, which have been linked to a greater risk for skin cancer. Opponents object to it because it's another tax associated with the expensive health overhaul — though recent Internet discussions have focused on the alleged discriminatory impact of taxing an activity that mainly appeals to white people.

Not surprisingly, tanning salons and bed-shop operators firmly oppose the tax. Many clients have already been cutting back on their services, thanks to the sluggish economy. The tanning industry contends that the much wealthier cosmetic surgery industry should be a far more inviting IRS target. And some progressive writers, such as political blogger Adam Searing, have seconded that view:

When you start picking and choosing among this group and that group it creates resentment and doesn't look fair. I mean, come on — who has the bigger cash war chest to lobby Congress? The cosmetic surgeons or the small business owners who operate tanning salons?

One voice has been conspicuously absent from the chorus of tanning-tax critics: House Minority Leader John Boehner. The Ohio Republican has long been the butt of jokes about his yearlong orangeish hue — something that, for the record, he has attributed to the many afternoons he logs on golf courses. (Beltway observers, meanwhile, note that the Boehner tan displayed a suspicious resilience during February's record snowfalls in the capital.) During the February White House summit on health care reform, New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner joked that Boehner might be "particularly livid about the tanning bed tax." President Obama has joked in public that Boehner is "a person of color" even though his is "not a color that appears in the natural world."

All joking aside, Boehner doesn't appear to have complained much about this particular provision in the health care law. And his office has not returned calls from Yahoo! News seeking comment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_...55YmxhbmNoYXQ-

think this law does have race issues attached to it. If they want to tax white people that tan then they should tax black people that use relaxers! The chemicals in those products simply get flushed down the drain into the environment... I'm sure that law wouldn't get far.

A tax on tanning treatments...OMG, this is just waaaay too funny. The interesting little tidbits that are in this bill are just starting to surface. Wait until the BIG stuff comes to light...

Sara,you bring up a good point I hadn't thought of. It is totally a tax on the fair skinned population. That in it self is or should be illegal. I know that if it were the other way around there would be a bunch of them screaming bloody murder. But look at who is in office and look at " who he is taxing. He is taxing the hell out of the upper income earners and now he has gone after their kids. He is a sick dude and needs to be booted out of power. It is in it self a racist discriminatory tax.

There shouldn't be a tax just for the sake of taxing.. I guess Obama needs all the money he can get to fund his healthcare pony.

LoL, that's a good one sarah, and I agree. I say if people want to tan and endanger themselves, then let them.

Speaking of the environment... Well, people who smoke, they like to flick their cig butts where ever after done smoking- well shouldn't they be given citations due to littering? Not that I really care, but isn't there a "green" movement?

Yep here a good place to start.
There should be a luxary on all Jewlery. Costume jewlery at 5% and Gold or silver at 10% gemstones at 20% No one will die without it.

Health overhaul likely to strain doctor shortage
Lauran Neergaard, Ap Medical Writer – Mon Mar 29, 3:18 am ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/...t_primary_care


WASHINGTON – Better beat the crowd and find a doctor.

Primary care physicians already are in short supply in parts of the country, and the landmark health overhaul that will bring them millions more newly insured patients in the next few years promises extra strain.

The new law goes beyond offering coverage to the uninsured, with steps to improve the quality of care for the average person and help keep us well instead of today's seek-care-after-you're-sick culture. To benefit, you'll need a regular health provider.

Yet recently published reports predict a shortfall of roughly 40,000 primary care doctors over the next decade, a field losing out to the better pay, better hours and higher profile of many other specialties. Provisions in the new law aim to start reversing that tide, from bonus payments for certain physicians to expanded community health centers that will pick up some of the slack.

A growing movement to change how primary care is practiced may do more to help with the influx. Instead of the traditional 10-minutes-with-the-doc-style office, a "medical home" would enhance access with a doctor-led team of nurses, physician assistants and disease educators working together; these teams could see more people while giving extra attention to those who need it most.

"A lot of things can be done in the team fashion where you don't need the patient to see the physician every three months," says Dr. Sam Jones of Fairfax Family Practice Centers, a large Virginia group of 10 primary care offices outside the nation's capital that is morphing into this medical home model.

"We think it's the right thing to do. We were going to do this regardless of what happens with health care reform," adds Jones. His office, in affiliation with Virginia Commonwealth University, also provides hands-on residency training to beginning doctors in this kind of care.

Only 30 percent of U.S. doctors practice primary care. The government says 65 million people live in areas designated as having a shortage of primary care physicians, places already in need of more than 16,600 additional providers to fill the gaps. Among other steps, the new law provides a 10 percent bonus from Medicare for primary care doctors serving in those areas.

Massachusetts offers a snapshot of how giving more people insurance naturally drives demand. The Massachusetts Medical Society last fall reported just over half of internists and 40 percent of family and general practitioners weren't accepting new patients, an increase in recent years as the state implemented nearly universal coverage.

Nationally, the big surge for primary care won't start until 2014, when the bulk of the 32 million uninsured starts coming online.

Sooner will come some catch-up demand, as group health plans and Medicare end co-payments for important preventive care measures such as colon cancer screenings or cholesterol checks. Even the insured increasingly put off such steps as the economy worsened, meaning doctors may see a blip in diagnoses as those people return, says Dr. Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

That's one of the first steps in the new law's emphasis on wellness care over sickness care, with policies that encourage trying programs like the "patient-centered medical home" that Jones' practice is putting in place in suburban Virginia.

It's not easy to switch from the reactive — "George, it's your first visit to check your diabetes in two years!" — to the proactive approach of getting George in on time.

First Jones' practice adopted an electronic medical record, to keep patients' information up to date and help them coordinate necessary specialist visits while decreasing redundancies.

Then came a patient registry so the team can start tracking who needs what testing or follow-up and make sure patients get it on time.

Rolling out next is a custom Web-based service named My Preventive Care that lets the practice's patients link to their electronic medical record, answer some lifestyle and risk questions, and receive an individually tailored list of wellness steps to consider.

Say Don's cholesterol test, scheduled after his yearly checkup, came back borderline high. That new lab result will show up, with discussion of diet, exercise and medication options to lower it in light of his other risk factors. He might try some on his own, or call up the doctor — who also gets an electronic copy — for a more in-depth discussion.

"It prevents things from falling through the cracks," says Dr. Alex Krist, a Fairfax Family Practice physician and VCU associate professor who designed and tested the computer program with a $1.2 million federal grant. In a small study of test-users, preventive services such as cancer screenings and cholesterol checks increased between 3 percent and 12 percent.

Pilot tests of medical homes, through the American Academy of Family Physicians and Medicare, are under way around the country. Initial results suggest they can improve quality, but it's not clear if they save money.

Primary care can't do it alone. Broader changes are needed to decrease the financial incentives that spur too much specialist-driven care, says Dr. David Goodman of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

"What we need is not just a medical home, but a medical neighborhood."

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.

___

On the Net:

American Academy of Family Physicians: http://www.aafp.org

Fairfax Family Practice Centers: http://www.fairfaxfamilypractice.com

Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice: http://tdi.dartmouth.edu/

comments

So, here we are -- with a majority of Americans feeling distinctly un-American as a partisan takeover of health care was engineered last weekend. But do Americans realize that Congress just took over student loans as well? Unlikely.

Now, not only will government increasingly be making decisions about individuals' health care, but students will also have to deal exclusively with the government to get the financing they need for college. The government will be in charge of the delivery of $1 trillion in federal student loans over the next 10 years. That means 19 million students will have no where to call but to 1-800-DEPT-OF-ED. -- I'm sure the calls will be handled in the order in which they were received. Good luck with that. Competition and choice have been taken away in the student loan market. Let's face it, this experiment can only end badly.

It's frustrating that a law this sweeping was swept under the Obamacare rug. The Senate never introduced a student loan reform bill. It never held a hearing. And proposed changes to the student loan program were never even considered by lawmakers at the committee level.

"Schoolhouse Rock's" Bill is red faced with shame. What's worse is that The Wall Street Journal editorial page and The Washington Times reported on Thursday about certain Democratic Congressmen giving certain non-profit companies in their states non-competitive carve outs...And these are companies that already didn't pay taxes. And there was even a special "carve out" for Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota. But it was taken out at the last minute because it was just too unseemly. At least we know they have standards!

If the tables were turned, Democrats would be crying foul and demanding an ethics investigation. The American people -- and its students -- deserve to know what really happened.

The current numbers of primary care physicans will decrease over time with all the new regulations and mandates. I refuse to allow my medical records to leave this country.Fridays article about out soarcing to India our medicle records. I for one refuse to participate in Oboma care and have cashed out all my holdings and put them in a safety doposit box. I refuse to pay taxes to support this socialist take over of our economy. I will live sparcly and wait untill we get these people out of office.

If there is a shortage of primary care physicians then their pay will go up, more doctors will chose that over a speciality and the shortage will disapear.

No worries about a shortage of doctors, between cancer and a heart attack I have 4 and only 1 was born here. I seriously think that there is not a single natural born American cardiologist in Michigan.

Under ObamaCare the PAY of Primary Care Physicians will not go up compared to the additional work load. We already have a shortage of PCP's and the numbers are going DOWN not up - because Specialists still make much more and work much less. Anyway you slice it we are looking at rationed care with MEGA-delays just like England and Canada.... But the IRS will be knocking on your door the first time you miss a premium.... Enjoy your Socialized Medicine America!

the anti-constitution, obama marxistcare, will turn this country into a third world medical mess of fewer doctors, long waits and poor quality of care as more health care professionals who are NOT qualified will be asked to take the place of real doctors.

March 29, 2010
Congress Approves Final Piece of Health Care Overhaul
by: David Lightman McClatchy Newspapers

Washington - Congress Thursday passed and sent to President Barack Obama the final piece of landmark health care legislation intended to change dramatically how most Americans buy, use and maintain insurance coverage.

The House approved the bill by a vote of 220 to 207 Thursday night, hours after the Senate passed the measure by a vote of 56 to 43. No Republicans in either chamber voted for either bill. This legislation, combined with the bill signed into law on Tuesday, will bring the most significant change in health care policy since Medicare was created in 1965 to provide health insurance coverage for seniors and the disabled.

The new laws will extend health insurance coverage to 32 million people who currently are uninsured. They will expand coverage to 94 percent of eligible Americans. Consumers will find a host of changes in how they deal with doctors, insurers, hospitals and the rest of the health care system. Most people will have to obtain coverage by 2014 or face penalties. Most employers will have to offer policies by then, and consumers will be able to shop for coverage through new exchanges, or marketplaces.

Several provisions will take effect within the next year. Some Medicare prescription drug beneficiaries will get a $250 rebate this year. By fall, insurers will no longer be able to put lifetime caps on coverage, and must allow young people to remain on their parents' policies until they turn 26. Insurers also will be barred from dropping coverage when people get sick and from refusing to cover children with pre-existing conditions.

Starting in January 2011, insurers in the individual and small group market will be required to spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Those in larger group markets would have to spend 85 percent. If they don't comply, they'd have to give consumers rebates.

The reconciliation bill approved Thursday contains fixes to the big health care bill that Obama signed into law Tuesday, and was part of a political deal needed to get both measures through Congress. House Democrats had objected to several provisions in the new law, notably an excise tax on high-end insurance policies that labor unions fought, as well as a series of special deals for individual lawmakers. The reconciliation bill delayed the tax until 2018, and some of the controversial deals were eliminated.

The bill will give more government help with insurance premiums for lower and middle class families and aid to states for Medicaid, the state-federal health program for lower-income people. To help pay for the changes, wealthier people will pay more Medicare payroll tax starting in 2013. Single people who earn more than $200,000 a year, and joint filers who make more than $250,000, will see the tax increase by 0.9 percentage points in 2013, to 2.35 percent, and will pay a new 3.8 percent tax on dividends, interest and other unearned income.

{{ Note : NONE of this applies to members of Congress or the administration... ****

The reconciliation bill's passage has been assured all week. Republicans tried to insert changes, forcing votes on 40 amendments or procedural points, but Democrats rejected each on party line votes Wednesday and Thursday. The GOP's effort seemed to lose steam as the "vote-a-rama," a series of nonstop votes that lasted until 2:45 a.m. Thursday, progressed. Then, GOP opponents turned their attention to November's elections. Their floor speeches and statements outlined themes they're likely to stress as they return home this weekend and throughout the year.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called the health care vote "a turning point in our politics and our nation." He called the measure "a vast expansion of the entitlement state that we can't afford, massive cuts to Medicare, higher taxes, higher health care costs, worse care, taxpayer-funded abortions and don't believe the spin: This wasn't a party line vote. A whole lot of Democrats voted against it."

Thirty-four Democrats opposed the main bill in the House, and 33 opposed the reconciliation measure. Three Senate Democrats — Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas — voted no Thursday.

Democrats insisted, however, that they now have strong arguments to make, claiming the bill will provide more jobs, more peace of mind and reduce the federal deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the $938 billion measure will reduce deficits by $143 billion over the next 10 years. "As we start the spring by closing a chapter in health reform's long history, it's really a new beginning for all America," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

PROMISES, PROMISES: Health plan maps Obama pledges
Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer Mon Apr 12, 6:24 am ET

WASHINGTON – The nation may be divided over the wisdom of President Barack Obama's big new health care law, but it largely delivers on more than 30 specific promises he made as a candidate.

Americans basically got what the majority voted for when they elected Obama in 2008, although many people today might not realize there are costs as well as benefits in the health plan's fine print.

"No one has the right to say they were misled during the campaign," said health care industry consultant Robert Laszewski, a critic of the law. "For all the controversy, what (Obama) has done in health care is consistent with what he promised. It's really very close."

Obama kept most of his promises, but not all.

As a candidate, he called for putting the U.S. on a path to coverage for all by building on the existing health care system, in which most workers and their families get private insurance through an employer.

He proposed tax credits to help people whose jobs didn't come with health benefits, and he wanted large employers to contribute to the cost of coverage.

His plan required insurers to accept all applicants, regardless of medical problems. It recommended a new, competitive health insurance market for people buying coverage on their own and expanding Medicaid to more low-income people.

The 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan Obama signed into law March 23 incorporates those major elements, with some tweaks.

The tax credits and the Medicaid expansion won't come until 2014, to keep down the initial cost of the bill. The ban on denying coverage to any person in poor health also won't be in place until then.

New health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses will be state-based, instead of national as Obama originally sought. The Congressional Budget Office says the plan will cover 95 percent of eligible Americans under age 65 by the year 2016, compared with 83 percent now.

Obama's effort to deliver doesn't seem to be helping him with the public. Polls show the public is split over the law, and those who don't like it hold stronger opinions. That's a worry for Democratic lawmakers running for re-election this fall.

"After huge debates in American history, sometimes the public rallies behind whatever the decision turns out to be — in this case they remain divided," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard public health professor who follows opinion trends.

One promise that Obama broke — and one that many doubt he ever will fulfill — may help to explain the unease.

Most of the tax increases in the bill fall on upper-income earners. But middle-class households will bear some. It's a broken promise from a president who gave broad assurance he would not raise taxes of any kind on families making less than $250,000.

For example, people who fail to get health insurance face a tax penalty starting in 2014, and the brunt of that tax will fall on the middle class, congressional budget analysts say. The tax is in the law because Obama changed his mind on requiring all individuals to carry health insurance. As a candidate, he had proposed only a requirement that parents get their kids covered.

Economist Joe Antos of the business-oriented American Enterprise Institute says billions of dollars in fees on insurers, drugmakers and medical device manufacturers also will be passed on to average consumers. "It is a political fiction that only the companies pay," Antos said.

The Web site PolitiFact.com counts nine health care promises kept and three broken. The latter list includes Obama's tax promise — one his critics aren't likely to overlook.

PolitiFact, a project of the St. Petersburg Times, lists more than 15 additional promises in stages of delivery, usually due to long lead times for major changes under the law. Others say most of those promises should count as kept because the law says they will be carried out.

PolitiFact lists two other broken promises: negotiating the health care bill in front of C-SPAN cameras, and creating a government health plan to compete with private insurers.

But it's the yet-to-be-fulfilled promise that's most likely to determine whether the health care overhaul ultimately wins broad acceptance.

Obama promised to cut the cost of a typical family's health insurance premiums by $2,500 from projected prices if no changes had been made. Economist Karen Davis says the goal can be reached over time, particularly if the tax credits to millions now uninsured are counted. Estimates of the possible savings of the bill have been overly conservative, she contended.

"This will largely eliminate the problem of families not being able to pay for medical care," said Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, a research clearinghouse that supported the broad goals of the overhaul.

Perhaps. But polls show many people believe their premiums will go up.

___

On the Net:

PolitiFact: http://www.politifact.com

Commonwealth Fund: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/

American Enterprise Institute: http://www.aei.org/ra/43

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100412/...9taXNlc3Byb20-

And everyone thinks people don't support or didn't vote for Obama because he is black. We just happened to know the health care bill wasn't as good as he wanted us to believe. Now look how he reneged on his promises? Thanks, Obama, as a middle-class tax payer, I appreciate you lies and deceit. Don't get too used to your job.

Anyone else like how most of the yet to be filled promises won't possibly kick in until after 2012. Nothing like passing a bill that doesn't really take effect until after you are up for re-election. If the plan was so good and was actually going to reduce the deficit and help the American people, why not implement more of the benefits sooner?
If, in 2012, Obama tries to stand up there and tout the healthcare bill as a success it will be a total farce since the vast majority of the possible benefits and/or pitfalls of the bill won’t have happened yet (except of course all the businesses who have declared that the bill will cause them major losses which will either result in price increases or job cuts because businesses like Verizon and AT&T are sure to find a way to recoup that money by cutting overhead or passing the price on to consumers).

I disagree that the anger comes from the tax increase for the middle class. That's not the issue because nobody knows about it. Nobody knows what's in this bill, that's the problem. This debate took place almost strictly along party lines, not about the merits of the bill, and the campaign to sell it to the public didn't help much in terms of education about the bill's contents, that's why people are angry. Nobody has any idea what this reform is about, all they know is that congress is in-fighting again instead of working together to improve our nation quickly and efficiently.

If ObamaCare is so good for everyone, why do Mr. Obama and his associates in Congress feel that they need to hire several thousand new IRS agents to enforce it?

These so-called agents are little more than well-dressed, bought and paid for (with your tax dollars) gov't thugs who will force ObamaCare down your throat if you refuse. Well, maybe ObamaCare isn't that good of a deal, huh? Maybe Obama knows this, and knows he'll be needing some extra muscle around to make sure you fork over a chunk of your paycheck to fund his new healthcare scheme. Ya think?

How would you like it if the owner of a business in your town said, "You will buy services (no matter how lousy they might be) from my company or else I'll send my thugs around to squeeze it out of you!" The same tactics will be used by Obama and his Washington politicians with this new gov't HealthCare legislation.

And, to add insult to injury, the biggest part of the taxes, fees and penalties that'll be raked in under this new piece of grab-ass legislation will (over time) be "borrowed" (embezzled is actual word for it) by these corrupt politicians and quietly spent on other things -- other things, like foreign military adventures and their "pet" projects -- or just pocketed when no one is looking. But make no mistake about it, the biggest part of this fund will not, I repeat will NOT, be used for your healthcare needs. They'll deny thousands of claims that even insurance companies wouldn't deny and just keep your heathcare taxes. Effectively it's like what that old thief Lyndon Baines Johnson did with your Social Security TRUST funds over 45 years ago. Washington politicians still do today! Pretend to borrow it, issue an IOU and take it -- and spend it, never to reimburse the fund. Now they are calling your Social Security benefits an entitlement from the gov't, even if you paid into the stinking thing for over 40 years. Thieves, cutthroats and liars, the lot of them. No true, you say? Turn off your TV and get to a good library. It's all right there in the gov't records -- what really happened to your Social Security retirement fund. So, give up your DopeTube(TV) for a while, and go do the research. Educate yourself instead of believing everything you see and hear on your bigscreen DopeTube! Washington politicians over the years have embezzled and spent all your Social Secuity retirement funds -- so what makes you think they care about funding your healthcare needs? Off camera Mr. Obama and his friends in Congress have their eyes on what they're calling a "catastrophic pool". They're drooling at the mouth over this new source of plunder. What is it? All insurance companies have "pools" of cash reserves. It's the money collected from all their premiums and receivables. As small a percentage of that reserve pool as possible is used to pay against claims - the balance is kept and spent on other things by the owners of the insurance company. Now, these clever politicians in Washington have figured out how this works, and want to cash in on that same tried and true scheme - because it means a vast new source of tax loot to "borrow" and spend, and, of course, never pay back. Wake up America. Never doubt it. You're about to be swindled once again, LBJ style.

the way i see it the Middle class is always the one to pay for all the promises made .What has OBAMA done ? He is taking us deeper and deeper in debt.end of story.

If ObamaCare is so good for everyone, why do Mr. Obama and his associates in Congress feel that they need to exempt themselves and their familes from the program they insist is so great for the rest of the country ??

Health-care law may revoke insurance coverage for members of Congress and their staffers
By Robert Pear - The New York Times
Published: 04/13/10 at 4:15 AM | Updated: 04/13/10 at 11:36 AM

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/13/he...heir-staffers/

Full story: Washington Memo – Baffled by Health Plan? So Are Some Lawmakers – NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us...er=rss&emc=rss

We watched Team Obama and the Demcare mob grab any kiddie human shields they could find to help them pass the government health care takeover. They put medical professionals in lab coat costumes to shill for the plan. They peddled junk science statistics to scare the pants off voters. They bullied the non-partisan CBO number-crunchers over budget estimates that didn’t go their way. They created an Internet snitch brigade to intimidate citizen dissenters.

They wouldn’t use the law now to gather patient data and exploit it for political lobbying purposes like the Leftists are doing now in Britain, would they?

General Election 2010: Labour accused of using cancer patient database for postcard mailing
Labour has been accused of using a Government database to target cancer victims with party political messages.
By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor
Published: 12:11PM BST 11 Apr 2010

Personalised cards were sent to 250,000 women saying that the Tories would scrap a Labour guarantee that all suspected breast cancer patients would be seen by a specialist within two weeks of GP referral.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, was under pressure from the Tories to investigate the mailings, although Labour said it was "categorically untrue" to suggest the party had targeted the patients.

Charity warns of £2bn hole in social care budget The mailshots, which featured a message from a breast cancer survivor praising Labour's policy, referred to the addressee's name several times.

The cards ask specifically: “Are the Tories a change you can afford? Many of those who received the cards had undergone scans or treatment within the past five years.

In one instance a card was sent to a woman who had died of breast cancer. Another card was sent to a television producer who had a potentially cancerous lump that turne dout to be a cyst.

Diane Dwelly, a 48-year-old woman whose photograph was used in the mailing, said she thought she had “probably been used by Labour”.

She said she thought her picture was being taken to be used in a magazine for the National Health Service, not as part of Labour’s election campaign.

The Sunday Times said the cards were sent last month before the date of the General Election was announced by a private company which has won accounts for sending mail on behalf of the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK.

They are part of a strategy which has so far seen 600,000 cards sent out. Some are aimed at parents whose children attend Sure Start centres. In all Labour is hoping to distribute 4.5million of the cards during the election campaign.

Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, wrote to Mr Brown demanding assurances that data protection laws had not been broken and called on health secreatary Andy Burnham to apologise for the mail-out.

He said: "It is shameful that the Labour Party, knowing that we are the only party that is going to increase investment in the NHS, have decided to deliberately scare patients and misrepresent what we have said.

"I'm actually rather shocked that they are trying to target breast cancer patients and alarm them by making up stories about what the Conservative Party would do.

"I think Mr Burnham should write to every woman Labour sent these cards to and apologise and withdraw these claims."

David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, said that if the mailshot had been carried out using private medical data "it will constitute one of the largest deliberate intrusions on privacy in modern times".

He said: "It is not plausible that you can accurately target cancer sufferers by socio-economic or demographic data, therefore the company has to explain precisely how it obtained its target lists."

But a Labour spokesman said: "The Labour Party would never specifically target any material at people suffering from a medical condition.

“To suggest otherwise is categorically untrue. Over the past months Labour has sent out literature on a range of issues including the cancer guarantee.

"Obviously we would never mean to cause offence to anyone, especially to anyone suffering from cancer.

"It is because we want to give the best treatment and support to those affected by cancer that we introduced the cancer guarantee."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...d-mailing.html

Speaking of which, this use of patient as government pawn by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will make you sick. Arrived in my e-mail box over the weekend:



Commemorative Framed Photo
Own a piece of history!

You can celebrate our historic health care victory and share it with your family and friends.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is offering you a piece of history with your very own commemorative framed photo of the historic signing ceremony for health care reform at a special supporter rate of $50.

Proud Democrats across America are standing strong and helping move America forward. We are also offering a variety of “Proud Democrat” , “We Don’t Quit” merchandise and “A Woman’s Place is in the House, as Speaker” t-shirts, mugs and hats. Come to MyDemocraticStore.com and use our “victory” code to save 20% on your purchase.

A portion of the proceeds of your gifts today go directly to help elect courageous House Democrats many of whom are under attack for voting yes on health care.

Come to MyDemocraticStore.com and you can show the world you’re a proud Democrat!

Thank you for all your support.

Jon Vogel
DCCC Executive Director

P.S. Reserve your own commemorative framed photo of the historic signing ceremony for health care reform today. Come to MyDemocraticStore.com and use your “victory” coupon to save 20% on your purchase.
The little boy in the picture with Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid is Marcelas Owens, whose Demcare story I’ve deconstructed several times to high-decibel shrieks from the Left.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/04/12...vernment-pawn/

Health-care law may revoke insurance coverage for members of Congress and their staffers

Like they would ever, ever let that really, really happen..........it may be 'written' but it ain't ever gonna happen.

LOL - see what happens when you sign things with out bothering to READ them ... all kinds of nasty little surprises ...

Health insurers shifting costs ahead of law
By Susan Heavey - Thu Apr 15, 5:27 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Some of the largest U.S. health insurers are changing their accounting practices to book administration costs as medical costs in an attempt to circumvent new industry reforms, according to a U.S. Senate panel's report released on Thursday.

Under the healthcare law passed in March, insurers must adjust their spending habits to meet new requirements. For example, large group plans must spend at least 85 cents of every premium dollar paid to them on actual medical care as opposed to administrative costs, while individual and small group plans must spend 80 cents.

Wall Street closely watches such spending levels, known as medical-loss ratios, or MLRs, as a sign of potential profits. Major health insurance stock indexes fell after the report.

"The insurance industry is beginning to consider the financial impact of the new federally required (medical) loss ratio requirements, including questionable changes in their accounting practices," the Democratic-led Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation said in a statement.

For example, WellPoint Inc "has already 'reclassified' more than half a billion dollars of administrative expenses as medical expenses," it said.

WellPoint spokeswoman Kristin Binns said the company would work with regulators to implement the MLR requirement, but did not comment on whether it had shifted any costs or changed its accounting practices.

A review of companies' expenses for 2009 shows that in some markets, insurers are spending 74 cents per dollar on care on average, according to the report, which was released on the committee's website at http://link.reuters.com/bas87j.

Cigna spokesman Chris Curran said it was too early to say how the new MLR rules would affect the insurer, and that methods of calculating costs were still being developed ahead of the new rules. Other insurers did not respond to requests for comment.

2011 DEADLINE

Although the MLR rule does not kick in until January 1, insurers so far are "still far below" what the law will require, said Senator John Rockefeller, the committee's chairman.

"This new data makes clear that too many health insurance companies are still putting profits before people," Rockefeller said, "and they have a lot of work to do to meet the consumer protection requirements of the health care reform law by the end of this year."

Regulators at the Department of Health and Human Services, charged with implementing much of the new health reform law, are pushing to apply the MLR changes quickly.

Earlier this week, the agency called on a major health insurance organization -- the National Association of Insurance Commissioners -- to give its recommendations for specific MLR ratio regulations by June 1, six months earlier than the law's December 31 deadline.

"(The agency) is seeking to publish regulations as soon as possible to allow sufficient time for health insurance issuers to incorporate these changes," U.S. Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote in a letter the group.

The S&P Managed Health Care Index closed down 0.9 percent on Thursday. The Morgan Stanley Healthcare Payor Index, which also fell after the report was released and was largely in negative territory all day, closed up 0.4 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100415/...hcare_insurers


Obama extends health care rights to gay partners
By Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer Fri Apr 16, 6:42 am ET

WASHINGTON – In a move hailed as a step toward fairness for same-sex couples, President Barack Obama is ordering that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners.

The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments.

The designated visitors should have the same rights that immediate family members now enjoy, Obama's instructions said. It said Medicare-Medicaid hospitals, which include most of the nation's facilities, may not deny visitation and consultation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

The move was called a major step toward fairness for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

"This is a critical step in ending discrimination against LGBT families and ensuring that, in the event of a hospital stay, all Americans have the right to see their loved ones," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The new rules, Obama said, should "guarantee that all patients' advance directives, such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies, are respected," and that patients' designees be able to "make informed decisions regarding patients' care."

Some gay advocacy groups say Obama has moved too slowly to fulfill campaign promises to expand their civil rights. The nation's top military leaders recently said it is time to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has kept gays from serving openly in the armed services.

The Human Rights Campaign, which backs gay rights, called Obama's decision an "important action" that was inspired in part by a New York Times article about a lesbian couple in Miami. They were kept apart while one lay dying in a hospital despite having an "advanced health care directive" asking for full visitation rights for each other.

"Discrimination touches every facet of the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, including at times of crisis and illness," said HRC President Joe Solmonese. "The president's action today will help ensure that the indignities" suffered by the Miami patient and her children will not happen to others.

In his statement, Obama said: "Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides — whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay. Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend."

He added: "Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated."

Without the expanded visitor-designation rights, Obama said, "all too often, people are made to suffer or even to pass away alone, denied the comfort of companionship in their final moments while a loved one is left worrying and pacing down the hall."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/...1hZXh0ZW5kcw--

.... nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners.

This is a long time in coming - JMHO. Insurers nor govt should determine who someone's "next of kin" is ...

A Neurosurgeon Calls In About Death Panels
January 20, 2013 By Mark Levin: NewsEditor

If you are over 70 and need stroke care, they are not going to treat you, they are going to give you “comfort care”. You must listen to this Neurosurgeon speaking out. It is scary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=mKRsBSTgprU


http://www.westernjournalism.com/mar...-death-panels/

commnents


So now I am a unit. Not a mother, grandmother, great grandmother. How dare Obama to say I am not worth saving. I still have things to contribute. I have hills to climb and horizons to see. When Obama and his family get the same health care I might think different but I don’t think so. No one can tell me those who made these decisions are going by the same laws. I hope GOD will prove them wrong to think they are better than the rest of us

...

An interesting audio piece.
I am a retired Army officer. One very proficient in arms. I am nearing 70 years of age.
Allow me to direct this statement and pledge to any Hospital Administrator in my service area.
You do not have to obey an illegal order.
Furthermore, if I or any of my family over the age of 70 should be in your hospital and require emergency neurosurgery and you refuse to allow emergency life-saving surgery, but instead order “Comfort Care” – Know this: I will find you and perform emergency neurosurgery on you with my 1911.

...

Every body in this Country should know that we have a dictator in the White House. But, over 50% of the people receive entitlements from the Government and there is no better incentive for them to to let him dictate . When the day comes, and it will , that those entitlements are stopped because the US cannot borrow any more money, Then you will get the change that and they will also !!! BE READY, Just saying