Do you support Obama Care ?

Quote:

---

“It’s like the back of the refrigerator. You see all these wires and the rest. All you need to know is, you open the door. The light goes on.”

---

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

and

"It's too complicated for you to understand (translated to 'above your intelligence'), but trust me, this is good for you."

and

"This is man's work, now you go run along home and make me dinner, you don't need to know this stuff."

and

"You don't need to know all that complicated stuff with checking accounts and stuff, I'll handle that, just keep the house clean, meals on time and the laundry done.";)

Great sign I saw---

CLEAN HOUSE IN 2010 AND REMEMBER THE SENATE AS WELL.

LOL, this question was on one of my surveys. Not related to the sign but I guess they agree with it.

Other than political polls, have you been interviewed for any type of household cleaning products survey in the past month? (Select one answer.)

Quote:

---

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul
By TERRY JONES, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 09/15/2009 07:09 PM ET

Condition Critical : What Doctors Think About Health Reform Doctors Verbatim On Health Care Reform
09/24/2009 08:22 PM ET

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=506106

---

Doctor shortage? 28 states may expand nurses' role
By Carla K. Johnson, Ap Medical Writer 15 mins ago

CHICAGO – A nurse may soon be your doctor.

With a looming shortage of primary care doctors, 28 states are considering expanding the authority of nurse practitioners. These nurses with advanced degrees want the right to practice without a doctor's watchful eye and to prescribe narcotics. And if they hold a doctorate, they want to be called "Doctor."

For years, nurse practitioners have been playing a bigger role in the nation's health care, especially in regions with few doctors. With 32 million more Americans gaining health insurance within a few years, the health care overhaul is putting more money into nurse-managed clinics.

Those newly insured patients will be looking for doctors and may find nurses instead.

The medical establishment is fighting to protect turf. In some statehouses, doctors have shown up in white coats to testify against nurse practitioner bills. The American Medical Association, which supported the national health care overhaul, says a doctor shortage is no reason to put nurses in charge and endanger patients.

Nurse practitioners argue there's no danger. They say they're highly trained and as skilled as doctors at diagnosing illness during office visits. They know when to refer the sickest patients to doctor specialists. Plus, they spend more time with patients and charge less. "We're constantly having to prove ourselves," said Chicago nurse practitioner Amanda Cockrell, 32, who tells patients she's just like a doctor "except for the pay."

On top of four years in nursing school, Cockrell spent another three years in a nurse practitioner program, much of it working with patients. Doctors generally spend four years in undergraduate school, four years in medical school and an additional three in primary care residency training.

Medicare, which sets the pace for payments by private insurance, pays nurse practitioners 85 percent of what it pays doctors. An office visit for a Medicare patient in Chicago, for example, pays a doctor about $70 and a nurse practitioner about $60.

The health care overhaul law gave nurse midwives, a type of advanced practice nurse, a Medicare raise to 100 percent of what obstetrician-gynecologists make — and that may be just the beginning.

States regulate nurse practitioners and laws vary on what they are permitted to do:

• In Florida and Alabama, for instance, nurse practitioners are barred from prescribing controlled substances.

• In Washington, nurse practitioners can recommend medical marijuana to their patients when a new law takes effect in June.

• In Montana, nurse practitioners don't need a doctor involved with their practice in any way.

• Many other states put doctors in charge of nurse practitioners or require collaborative agreements signed by a doctor.

• In some states, nurse practitioners with a doctorate in nursing practice can't use the title "Dr." Most states allow it.

The AMA argues the title "Dr." creates confusion. Nurse practitioners say patients aren't confused by veterinarians calling themselves "Dr." Or chiropractors. Or dentists. So why, they ask, would patients be confused by a nurse using the title?

The feud over "Dr." is no joke. By 2015, most new nurse practitioners will hold doctorates, or a DNP, in nursing practice, according to a goal set by nursing educators. By then, the doctorate will be the standard for all graduating nurse practitioners, said Polly Bednash, executive director of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing.

Many with the title use it with pride. "I don't think patients are ever confused. People are not stupid," said Linda Roemer, a nurse practitioner in Sedona, Ariz., who uses "Dr. Roemer" as part of her e-mail address.

What's the evidence on the quality of care given by nurse practitioners?

The best U.S. study comparing nurse practitioners and doctors randomly assigned more than 1,300 patients to either a nurse practitioner or a doctor. After six months, overall health, diabetes tests, asthma tests and use of medical services like specialists were essentially the same in the two groups.

"The argument that patients' health is put in jeopardy by nurse practitioners? There's no evidence to support that," said Jack Needleman, a health policy expert at the University of California Los Angeles School of Public Health.

Other studies have shown that nurse practitioners are better at listening to patients, Needleman said. And they make good decisions about when to refer patients to doctors for more specialized care.

The nonpartisan Macy Foundation, a New York-based charity that focuses on the education of health professionals, recently called for nurse practitioners to be among the leaders of primary care teams. The foundation also urged the removal of state and federal barriers preventing nurse practitioners from providing primary care.

The American Medical Association is fighting proposals in about 28 states that are considering steps to expand what nurse practitioners can do.

"A shortage of one type of professional is not a reason to change the standards of medical care," said AMA president-elect Dr. Cecil Wilson. "We need to train more physicians."

In Florida, a bill to allow nurse practitioners to prescribe controlled substances is stalled in committee.

One patient, Karen Reid of Balrico, Fla., said she was left in pain over a holiday weekend because her nurse practitioner couldn't prescribe a powerful enough medication and the doctor couldn't be found. Dying hospice patients have been denied morphine in their final hours because a doctor couldn't be reached in the middle of the night, nurses told The Associated Press.

Massachusetts, the model for the federal health care overhaul, passed its law in 2006 expanding health insurance to nearly all residents and creating long waits for primary care. In 2008, the state passed a law requiring health plans to recognize and reimburse nurse practitioners as primary care providers.

That means insurers now list nurse practitioners along with doctors as primary care choices, said Mary Ann Hart, a nurse and public policy expert at Regis College in Weston, Mass. "That greatly opens up the supply of primary care providers," Hart said.

But it hasn't helped much so far. A study last year by the Massachusetts Medical Society found the percentage of primary care practices closed to new patients was higher than ever. And despite the swelling demand, the medical society still believes nurse practitioners should be under doctor supervision.

The group supports more training and incentives for primary care doctors and a team approach to medicine that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants, whose training is comparable.

"We do not believe, however, that nurse practitioners have the qualifications to be independent primary care practitioners," said Dr. Mario Motta, president of the state medical society.

The new U.S. health care law expands the role of nurses with:

• $50 million to nurse-managed health clinics that offer primary care to low-income patients.

• $50 million annually from 2012-15 for hospitals to train nurses with advanced degrees to care for Medicare patients.

• 10 percent bonuses from Medicare from 2011-16 to primary care providers, including nurse practitioners, who work in areas where doctors are scarce.

• A boost in the Medicare reimbursement rate for certified nurse midwives to bring their pay to the same level as a doctor's.

The American Nurses Association hopes the 100 percent Medicare parity for nurse midwives will be extended to other nurses with advanced degrees.

"We know we need to get to 100 percent for everybody. This is a crack in the door," said Michelle Artz of ANA. "We're hopeful this sets the tone."

In Chicago, only a few patients balk at seeing a nurse practitioner instead of a doctor, Cockrell said. She gladly sends those patients to her doctor partners.

She believes patients get real advantages by letting her manage their care. Nurse practitioners' uphill battle for respect makes them precise, accurate and careful, she said. She schedules 40 minutes for a physical exam; the doctors in her office book 30 minutes for same appointment.

Joseline Nunez, 26, is a patient of Cockrell's and happy with her care.

"I feel that we get more time with the nurse practitioner," Nunez said. "The doctor always seems to be rushing off somewhere."


On the Net: American Nurses Association, http://www.nursingworld.org/

American Medical Association, http://www.ama-assn.org/



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/...N0b3JzaG9ydGE-

56% Support Repeal of Health Care Law
Rasmussenreports.com - 2 hrs 20 mins ago

Support for repeal of the recently-passed national health care plan is proving to be just as consistent as opposition to the plan before it was passed.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of likely voters nationwide favor repeal, while 41% are opposed. Those figures include 48% who Strongly Favor repeal and 29% who Strongly Oppose it.

Over the past four weeks, support for repeal has remained in a very narrow range from a low of 54% to a high of 58%. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._plan_up_to_58

Forty percent (40%) now believe repeal is at least somewhat likely, up two points from a week ago. Forty-nine percent (49%) say it's not likely. This include just 15% who see repeal as Very Likely and 12% who say it's Not at All Likely.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Just 35% of voters believe the new health care law will be good for the country, while 52% believe it will be bad. These numbers have changed little since the March 21 House vote to pass the health care bill. Prior to passage of the law, Scott Rasmussen wrote a Wall Street Journal column explaining "Why Obama Can't Move the Health Care Numbers."

Rasmussen Reports will track support for the repeal effort on a weekly basis for as long as it remains a significant issue. New updates will be released each Monday morning.

Each Monday at 3:00 p.m. Eastern, Rasmussen Reports will release new updates on the Generic Congressional Ballot. The health care issue is likely to be a key factor is this year's congressional elections. Currently, most voters recognize that the "Party of No" refers to the Republican Party and the GOP holds a solid advantage in terms of voter preference.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans and 55% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor repeal. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats are opposed.

Forty-five percent (45%) of Republicans say repeal is at least somewhat likely. So do 43% of unaffiliated voters. As for Democrats, 51% say repeal is not likely to happen.

Generally speaking, the partisan and demographic breakdowns have shifted little since passage of the health care bill. Those groups who opposed the bill tend to support repeal and those who supported the bill oppose repeal.

Most voters have believed for months that the quality of health care will suffer if the plan becomes law and that costs will go up.

Voters strongly believe the health care reform plan will cost more than official estimates, and 78% expect an increase in taxes on the middle class to pay for it.

Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters believe America is already overtaxed.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports April 16-17, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence (see methodology).

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20...ZzdXBwb3J0cmVw

Nearly 4M to pay health insurance penalty by 2016
By Stephen Ohlemacher 40 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Nearly 4 million Americans — the vast majority of them middle class — will have to pay the new penalty for not getting health insurance when President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law kicks in, according to congressional estimates released Thursday.

The penalties will average a little more than $1,000 apiece in 2016, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report.

Most of the people paying the fine will be middle class. Obama pledged in 2008 not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.

Republicans have criticized the penalties, even though the idea for a mandate was originally proposed by the GOP in the 1990s and is part of the Massachusetts health care plan signed into law in 2006 by then Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican. Attorneys general in more than a dozen states are working to challenge the mandate in federal court as unconstitutional.

"The individual mandate tax will fall hardest on Americans who can least afford to pay it, many of whom were promised subsidies by the Democrats and who the president has promised would not pay higher taxes," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Democrats argue the mandate and the penalties are a necessary part of a massive overhaul designed to expand coverage to millions who now lack it. They point out that getting young, healthy Americans in the insurance pool will reduce costs for others.

Americans who don't get qualified health insurance will be required to pay penalties starting in 2014, unless they are exempt because of low income, religious beliefs, or because they are members of American Indian tribes. The penalties will be fully phased in by 2016.

About 21 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, according to projections by the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Most of those people will be exempt from the penalties.

Under the new law, the penalties will be phased in starting in 2014. By 2016, those who must get insurance but don't will be fined $695 or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater.

After 2016, the penalties will be increased by annual cost-of-living adjustments. People will not be required to get coverage if the cheapest plan available costs more than 8 percent of their income.

The penalties will be collected by the Internal Revenue Service through tax returns. However, the IRS will not have the authority to bring criminal charges or file liens against those who don't pay.

About 3 million of those required to pay fines in 2016 will have incomes below $59,000 for individuals and $120,000 for families of four, according to the CBO projections. The other 900,000 people who must pay the fine will have higher incomes.

The government will collect about $4 billion a year in fines from 2017 through 2019, according to the report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/...NsawNwcmludA--

Quote:

---

Results: Do you support Obamacare in it's present form as presented 03/22/10 ?

yes -- 13 -- 25.00%

no --- 39 -- 75.00%

Voters: 52

---

---


Report: Health overhaul will increase nation's tab
By Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer 51 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls. But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back.

The mixed verdict for Obama's signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

In particular, the warnings about Medicare could become a major political liability for Democratic lawmakers in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade. "During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system. "A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.

In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions. "The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.

Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

A separate Congressional Budget Office analysis, also released Thursday, estimated that 4 million households would be hit with tax penalties under the law for failing to get insurance.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any reforms. The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period, even if overall health care spending rises.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging the cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and other providers as potentially unsustainable, it projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular program. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent, as the plans reduce extra benefits that they currently offer. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/...9ydGhlYWx0aA--

ObamaCare and the Constitution: What would Jefferson and Madison think?
By Nathan Tucker Tue Apr 27, 10:13 am ET

Davenport, Iowa – When asked last fall where the Constitution authorizes Congress to require citizens to buy health insurance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was temporarily caught off guard, finally sputtering, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” She then quickly turned to another reporter without further comment.

Another Democrat, Rep. Phil Hare of Illinois, reacted similarly when recently posed that question by one of his constituents: “I don’t really worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.”

While the thought that the Constitution actually limits the power of Congress to enact legislation may be foreign to some Democrats, the framers of the Constitution intended for the federal government to be limited to the powers that are specifically enumerated, or listed, in the text of the document.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote: “[T]he proposed Government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”

In part to protect that sovereignty, more than 20 states have challenged the constitutionality of the new federal health-care law. Several have even moved to pass amendments to their constitutions that would forbid any law that forces citizens to participate in a health-care system.

The outcome of these radical efforts to affirm the guaranteed rights of states and individuals will have huge consequences for the very character of America.

Key constraint: enumerated powersBecause the federal government is composed of – and constrained by – enumerated powers, then the power to regulate health care would have to be one of the powers specifically given to it in the Constitution.

Out of the 17 named powers given to Congress in Section 8 of Article 1, however, none mentions anything about heath care, insurance, doctors, medical treatment, or anything approaching an enumerated power that would allow Congress to legislate our health.

Then how is it that Democrats can claim the Constitution permits the new health-care law? They point to two constitutional provisions as their grant of authority to enact health-care legislation.

The first enumerated power claimed by Democrats is the “general welfare” clause. House majority leader Steny Hoyer, for instance, said that Congress has “broad authority” to provide for the general welfare. The term “general welfare” appears twice in the Constitution, once in the Preamble and another time in the “tax and spend” clause.

The Preamble to the Constitution, however, has never been considered a grant of power to the federal government. As the Supreme Court has put it, “[a]lthough th[e] preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States.”

The tax and spend clause, however, is an enumerated power given to Congress in the Constitution. It reads in part, “[T]he Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.â€

To read the term “general welfare” in the clause to be a broad grant of authority to Congress to tax for whatever purposes it deems are in the general welfare of the country would be to make a mockery of the Constitution. Such a broad grant of authority would eclipse a written constitution of enumerated specific, limited powers given to the federal government.

As Thomas Jefferson explained, “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. [Congress is] not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please.”

Madison also noted: “Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.”

The second enumerated power that Democrats claim supports their authority to regulate the health-care industry is the Commerce Clause. The Constitution does in fact specifically give Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”

The clause, however, was simply meant to prevent trade wars between the states, a common occurrence under the Articles of Confederation. The inability of the Continental Congress to resolve trade disputes among the various states and with foreign nations was one of the leading reasons the states called for a new federal government.

Meaning of the Commerce ClauseAs originally understood, the Commerce Clause was intended to create a “free trade zone” throughout America, only giving Congress the power to strike down state laws that discriminated against the buying, selling, and transportation of out-of-state goods.

Madison, in 1832, wrote that the clause was “a necessary control on the conduct of some of the importing States towards their non-importing neighbors.” Never once, in the Federalist Papers or the debates during the Constitution’s ratification, did anyone suggest that the Commerce Clause was anything more than the power to end trade barriers among the states.

Ever looking to expand its power, Congress, with the acquiescence of the Supreme Court, long ago seized on the Commerce Clause as its authority to regulate pretty much every detail of our lives.

The Supreme Court has gone so far as to uphold legislation that prohibited local, noneconomic activity such as growing wheat or marijuana for personal consumption under the absurd theory that, since the home-grown product is used instead of that which is transported across state lines, it has an effect on interstate commerce. Such a theory transforms the federal government into one with unlimited powers.

But the health-care legislation goes even further than the court has previously upheld by requiring an individual person to engage in economic transaction with a private company (i.e., buy health insurance) or face a fine. That is an unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab by Congress that, if upheld, would leave no check on Congress’s power. The concept of federalism and limited government would be dead.

It is time for the Supreme Court to once again hold that the Constitution imposes restrictions on Congress and to close the general welfare clause and Commerce Clause expressways by which the federal government has become one of infinite powers rather than finite authority.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100427...NsawNwcmludA--

Quote:

---

Well sir, Any normal person would think that Congress passing a bill without reading it first, and not knowing what was in it, wouldn't be Constitutional in the first place. Now that's one for the books. That's as crooked as a dogs hind leg. To most Americans it makes Obama and his Congress look more like the South end of a Mule headed North. Americans are going to remember this BIG TIME. GOD BLESS AMERICA !!

---

Obama says health care law already helps millions
By Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer 45 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The new health care law already is helping millions of people through tax breaks for small businesses and assistance for families with young adults, President Barack Obama said Saturday.

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama promoted his top domestic priority, which passed Congress with no Republican votes and continues to stir strong emotions nationwide. He acknowledged that many provisions will not take effect for years. But he said others are doing some families good now.

Some 4 million small-business owners and organizations have been told of a possible health care tax cut this year, Obama said. On June 15, some older people with high prescription drug costs will receive $250 to help fill a gap in Medicare's pharmaceutical benefits. "Already we are seeing a health care system that holds insurance companies more accountable and gives consumers more control," the president said.

Obama said Anthem Blue Cross dropped a proposed 39 percent premium increase on Californians after his administration demanded an explanation. He said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote to all states "urging them to investigate other rate hikes and stop insurance companies from gaming the system."

A new federal agency will provide grants to states with the best oversight programs, Obama said.

His administration also is drafting a "patients' bill of rights" to give consumers information about their health care choices and rights, he said.

As of September, Obama said, "the new health care law prohibits insurance companies from dropping people's coverage when they get sick and need it most."

He said his administration will urge large employers to follow several insurance companies' example of allowing people under 26 to stay on their parents' employer-provided health insurance plans starting this summer, rather than having to wait until September or later. "Ultimately, we'll have a system that provides more control for consumers, more accountability for insurance companies and more affordable choices for uninsured Americans," Obama said.

Republicans continue to attack the new law as too costly and ineffective. They vow to make it a major issue in the November congressional elections.

A new Gallup poll found that the law's enactment has not lessened Americans' concerns about health care costs. The poll found that 61 percent worry about the costs of a serious illness or accident and 48 percent worry about normal health care costs.

On the Net: Obama address: http://www.whitehouse.gov

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_health_care


He is claiming as a "victory" things that haven't happened yet ...

Fake it 'til you make it? :shrug He's pompously delusional. :crazy

New coverage for young adults will raise premiums
By Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer 47 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Letting young adults stay on their parents' health insurance until they turn 26 will nudge premiums nearly 1 percent higher for employer plans, the government said in an estimate released Monday.

The coverage requirement, effective starting later this year, is one of the most anticipated early benefits of President Barack Obama's new health care law. Many insurers have already started offering extended coverage to families who purchase their coverage directly. And employers say parents have flooded their benefits departments with questions.

The Health and Human Services Department released estimates of the costs and benefits of the requirement as part of a regulation directing employers and insurers how to carry it out.

The new benefit will cost $3,380 for each dependent, raising premiums by 0.7 percent in 2011 for employer plans, according to the department's mid-range estimate. Some 1.2 million young adults are expected to sign up, more than half of whom would have been uninsured.

Extended coverage will be required starting this fall, for health plan years beginning on or after Sept. 23.

Family coverage through the workplace now averages about $13,400 a year_ counting both the shares paid by the employer and worker. Many employers allow workers to keep college students on the company health plan until they graduate. But under the new law, staying in school would no longer be required.

The regulation also specifies that young adults offered extended coverage through an employer cannot be charged more than other dependents, nor can they be offered a lesser set of benefits. Instead, the cost must be spread broadly.

The situation is different for people buying their family coverage directly from an insurer, as many self-employed parents do. Unlike employers, insurers in the individual market do not have to spread the costs broadly. Parents would face an estimated additional premium of $2,360 in 2011.

Enrollment as well as cost would increase modestly after 2011 for both employer and individual plans. Starting in 2014, the major changes of the new health care law go into effect. New competitive insurance markets would open for business, government tax credits would be available to help pay premiums, and insurers would no longer be allowed to deny coverage to those in poor health. Most Americans would be then required to carry health insurance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100510/...NsawNwcmludA--

Spike in disability claims clogs overloaded system
By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer Mon May 10, 12:00 am ET

WASHINGTON – Nearly 2 million people are waiting to find out if they qualify for Social Security disability benefits. It will be a long wait for most, even if they eventually win their cases.

The Social Security system is so overwhelmed by applications for disability benefits that many people are waiting more than two years for their first payment. In Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota and other states, the wait can be even longer.

The Social Security commissioner, Michael J. Astrue, says the delays are unacceptable, particularly for people who have paid payroll taxes for years to support the system and now are unable to work because of debilitating medical problems. Astrue has had some success in reducing a case backlog that has plagued the system for years. But a spike in new applications, linked to the economic recession, threatens to swamp the system again.

Claims typically increase in a bad economy because many people who worked despite their disabilities get laid off and apply for benefits.

About 3.3 million people are expected to apply for benefits this year. That's 300,000 more than last year and 700,000 more than in 2008.

Nearly two-thirds of those claims will be denied by state agencies overseen by the Social Security Administration. Most of these people will drop their claims. But for those willing go through an appeals process that can take two years or more, chances are good they eventually will get benefits.

People who win claims can get retroactive benefits.

"The most important thing we can do to improve the disability process is to make the right decision as soon as possible," Astrue said at a recent congressional hearing. "Certainly, I'm not happy with the accuracy of the system, even though it is getting better."

His goal is to clear the backlog of appeals hearings by 2013. "It takes longer to fix something than it does to break it," he said.

Michael Quinn of Flint, Mich., said he waited nearly three years to get benefits after his initial application. Quinn was a sales representative when he was in a car accident in 2000 that left him with a shattered left leg, damaged vertebrae in his neck and 80 stitches in his head. Unable to do his job, he took a buyout from his employer and started working part-time jobs.

The work, he said, proved too difficult because he couldn't bend over, lift anything heavy or even move his head enough to look up.

"I wanted to work because I've worked all my life," Quinn said. "It was heartbreaking because I couldn't work. There was so little I could do."

Quinn, 64, said he filed for Social Security disability benefits in 2005 and his claim was denied. Quinn appealed to an administrative law judge and was awarded $1,900 a month — in 2008. He also got retroactive payments, dating to his original application.

"It's the most helpless feeling in the world because you're waiting for someone else," Quinn said.

Qualifying for disability benefits is not easy. A doctor must determine that a disability is severe enough to interfere with an applicant's ability to work. If applicants can't perform their old jobs, officials see if they can adapt to new ones. The system is designed to weed out malingerers.

"Social Security has a very stringent, very tight definition of what constitutes a disability," said Dan Allsup, communications director for Allsup Inc., an Illinois-based company that represents disability applicants, including Quinn. "It has to be that way to prevent the fraudulent, frivolous claims from getting into the system."

About 12.8 million disabled people receive disability benefits. Some 7.1 million get Social Security disability, 4.2 million get Supplemental Security Income and 1.5 million get both. Disabled workers get an average of $1,065 a month from Social Security and $498 a month from SSI.

Disability benefits are financed by payroll taxes, the same taxes workers pay to support the retirement system.

Here's how the application process works:

Applicants file disability claims with the Social Security Administration, which turns them over to state agencies, usually called Disability Determination Services. A doctor must verify that debilitating medical conditions will last at least a year. About 63 percent of initial claims are denied, after an average wait of 111 days.

Applicants in most states can appeal the decision to the same state agency. About 86 percent of those appeals are denied, after an average wait of an additional 104 days.

Applicants can then appeal to an administrative law judge. About 554,000 cases were decided at this level in 2009. The judges approved benefits in 63 percent of the cases, after an average processing time of 491 days.

Including the time it takes to file the appeals at each stage, the entire process takes an average of 777 days, or a little more than two years, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Applicants who are still denied benefits can appeal to a special council and eventually file a claim in federal court, but relatively few claims are awarded at these stages.

Astrue, who became Social Security commissioner in 2007, has worked to reduce the backlog of appeals before administrative law judges by hiring hundreds of judges and support staff. The number of cases pending before those judges dropped by 37,000, to just under 723,000, during the budget year that ended in September. It was the first drop in a decade.

The average processing time for that stage of the appeals process also dropped, from 514 days in 2008 to 491 days in 2009 and 442 days this year.

Many states have much longer waits.

Alaska, which recently opened a hearing office, takes an average 642 days for an administrative law judge to process a claim. Ohio takes 581 days, Michigan takes 564 days and Minnesota takes 560 days, according to Social Security statistics compiled by Allsup.

Despite improvements, the spike in new applications threatens to overwhelm the system.

"It's straining to meet the present caseloads, and I don't believe we have a well developed plan for what will happen in the future," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees Social Security.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100510/...Bpa2VpbmRpc2Fi