Mandating health Insurance - Obamacare

[American Patriot]

Well, you know, Obama asked Biden to go in HIS place....

"Let's send the White Boy who can't pull his foot outta his mouth...."

LMAO

[MinutemanCO]

It never ceases to amaze me regarding what could be termed this "Age of Entitlement." People can stand there, look you in the face and say "Yes, I deserve money, food, healthcare"... all for just living in the United States as a citizen. No work, no contribution to society, no real reason to deserve government handouts. Where is the honor and shame that normally would accompany the receiving of entitlements? What's happened to people? They really aren't people anymore. They have no purpose in life but to breathe the air, soak up others people's money, make new bastard children and complain. I believe that all human life is created in the image of God. Inherent to this philosophy is a value deemed priceless. However, even the Bible states that if you don't work... you don't eat. (2 Thes 3:10)

[Ryan Ruck]

I've been rewatching Star Trek: Voyager recently and have gotten to S07E05 "Critical Care". Low and behold I see Obamacare in this episode!

Thankfully someone already took the time to put some footage on YouTube:

[American Patriot]

Wow. I forgot all about that episode. Well, there you go. The future is NOW.

[vector7]

OBAMA: We Are God's Partners in Life and Death

August 19, 2009
Categories: Healthcare

'We are God's partners in matters of life and death'

A reader points out that President Obama's call with the rabbis today — as recorded in Rabbi Jack Moline's and other clerics' Twitter feeds — freights health care reform with a great deal of religious meaning, and veers into the blend of policy and faith that outraged liberals in the last administration.

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, according to Moline (paging Sarah Palin...), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided "who shall live and who shall die."

The president ended the call by wishing the rabbis "shanah tovah," or happy new year — in reference to the High Holidays a month from now.
By Ben Smith 04:25 PM

Friday, December 3, 2010
NYC Deploys Ambulances to begin Harvesting Victims' Organs

By Ethan A. Huff

The City of New York recently launched a new emergency services pilot program that seems more like something out of a science fiction movie than a real-life initiative. According to a recent New York Times report, the city has begun deploying two emergency ambulances in response to 911 calls -- one to try to save the lives of those involved, and the other to harvest their vital organs should the rescue efforts fail or be deemed likely to fail.

The city's new ambulances are emblazoned with the words "Organ Preservation Unit" (OPU), and they now trail behind primary rescue vehicles headed to situations where there could be valuable organs involved. And city officials insist that the whole procedure is perfectly ethical because the first rescue vehicle is unaware that the second one is there until a supervisor decides to stop the rescue efforts and make the announcement, which allegedly eliminates the possibility that rescuers will purposely allow a victim to die in order to gain access to the valuable organs.

The city received a grant from the federal government in the amount of $1.5 million to test the new program, and some officials say they hope to see the program expanded in the future. They say there are not enough organs available for those in need, and that targeting emergency situations where people with usable organs are likely to die could result in a significant boost of available organs.

Currently, OPUs are only dispatched between the hours of 4 p.m. and midnight in Manhattan. And only people between the ages of 18 and 60 who die of cardiac arrest are eligible to be harvested. But some officials are already looking forward to expanding the types of situations and deaths that will be eligible under the program.

"If we prove that you can take the body and successfully do this, [expanding the program] will be the next step," explained Dr. Lewis Goldfrank, director of emergency services at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/n...

Emergency Organ Harvest Unit Trial To Begin Today

12/01/2010

Last month, it was reported that the FDNY was hiring EMTs to man a new "Organ Preservation Vehicle" that would follow ambulances to the scenes of accidents in order to make sure fewer organs went to waste. Starting today, the program will begin a five-month trial run: the organ team will monitor 911 calls for people who may be in danger of dying, and if they can't be resuscitated, and family consents, the team will quickly move to try to save the kidneys.

"The unfortunate truth is that 8,000 New Yorkers are currently on the wait list for a donation, and there are barriers that make saving their lives not as simple as it could be," said Mayor Bloomberg.

Initially, the trial run will have certain limitations: it will be kept mostly to Manhattan, between the hours of 4 p.m. and midnight, to adults between 18 and 60, and to people who die of cardiac arrest at home or another residence. If the pilot is a success, doctors plan to expand it into Brooklyn and Queens, and to allow family members to decide to donate a loved one's organs even if the deceased person never registered. Officials hope the program mimics similar types of successful organ-harvesting programs in Spain and France, which is fine, as long as they don't follow the English method:


NYC Begins Sending "Organ Preservation Unit" to Some 911 Calls


If you have a heart attack in New York, you had better hope they don't send two ambulances, because the first one is for you, but the second one is for your kidneys.

The New York Times reports that the city is participating in a pilot program designed to improve the rate of organ collection from people who die of cardiac arrest. Usually, the organs of people who die outside hospitals are unfit for transplanting because they've gone too long without blood supply. But starting Wednesday, EMS will dispatch a team of "organ preservation experts" to the sites of some heart attacks.

The kidney specialists will stay out of sight until after a supervisor has declared a resuscitation effort failed, and the paramedics working on a patient won't know whether the team has even been dispatched, so officials say patients don't have to worry about paramedics letting them die so they can get their hands on their kidneys. Only people who have registered as organ donors and whose families have given consent will be subjected to "organ preservation." Last year, more than 7,000 people in New York City needed organ transplants, but there were only 285 deceased organ donors.

Read original story in The New York Times | Wednesday, Dec. 1, 2010

WND EXCLUSIVE
Obama adviser admits: 'We need death panels'

Makes shocking admission about Obamacare, advocates rationing for elderly

Published: 1 day ago

A top Democrat strategist and donor who served as President Obama’s lead auto-industry adviser recently conceded that the rationing of heath services under Obamacare is “inevitable.”

Steven Rattner advocated that such rationing should target elderly patients, while stating, “We need death panels.”

Rattner serves on the board the New America Foundation, or NAF, a George Soros-funded think tank that was instrumental in supporting Obamacare in 2010. Soros’ son, financier Jonathan Soros, is also a member of the foundation’s board.

Rattner was the so-called “car czar,” the lead auto adviser to the Treasury Department under Obama.

Last month, Rattner penned an opinion piece in the New York Times titled “Beyond Obamacare” in which he proclaimed “We need death panels” and argued rationing must be instructed to sustain Obama’s health-care plan. His comments have been virtually ignored by traditional media as the president campaign’s for a second term.

“We need death panels,” began Rattner. “Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health-care resources more prudently – rationing, by its proper name – the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”

Read all about the idea of “Medical Murder” and find out what Barack Obama would do in a second term, in “Fool Me Twice.”

Continued Rattner: “But in the pantheon of toxic issues – the famous ‘third rail’ of American politics – none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.”

Rattner lamented how Obama’s Affordable Care Act “regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries.”

Rattner said the numbers don’t add up unless Obamacare utilizes rationing.

“If his Independent Payment Advisory Board comes up with savings, Congress must accept either them or vote for an equivalent package,” stated Rattner. “The problem is, the advisory board can’t propose reducing benefits (a k a rationing) or raising fees (another form of rationing), without which the spending target looms impossibly large.”

Rattner singled out elderly patients for benefit cuts.

He wrote: “No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled – including Canada, Australia and New Zealand – have systems for rationing care.”

He concluded, “At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs.”

“We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable.”

Rattner serves on the NAF’s 22-person board of directors alongside Jonathan Soros, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria and Google’s Eric Schmidt.

Soros’ Open Society Foundation is a primary donor to the NAF.

Other major donors include the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google Inc. and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Another donor is Free Press, a group that advocates for more government control of the airwaves and Internet.

Free Press is also funded by Soros. Free Press was founded by Robert W. McChesney, an avowed Marxist who has recommended capitalism be dismantled “brick by brick.”

The NAF, meanwhile, bills itself as bipartisan and “the radical center.”

NAF fellow Michael Lind wrote, “Our goal [is] not to repeal the New Deal [of Franklin Roosevelt] but to adapt it to the circumstances of the 21st century.”

Discover The Networks notes how the NAF approved of Obamacare because it would “offer a new image” of how Americans view dying; and it would help “patients and their families to recognize” that, “[S]ometimes ‘doing everything’ results in more burden than benefit. High-tech medicine can prolong life, but for some patients, it merely draws out the process of dying.”

[American Patriot]

There are no death panels....

"These are not the death panels you're looking for...."

God...

[MinutemanCO]

Did Obama really say "We are God's partners in matters of life and death"? If he really did utter this contemptible phrase, he's in a worse mental state than even I thought he was.

[American Patriot]

Did Obama really say "We are God's partners in matters of life and death"? If he really did utter this contemptible phrase, he's in a worse mental state than even I thought he was.

Let me see if I can find it precisely....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...h.html?showall
August 19, 2009

Categories:

• Healthcare

'We are God's partners in matters of life and death'

A reader points out that President Obama's call with the rabbis today — as recorded in Rabbi Jack Moline's and other clerics' Twitter feeds — freights health care reform with a great deal of religious meaning, and veers into the blend of policy and faith that outraged liberals in the last administration.

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, according to Moline (paging Sarah Palin...), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided "who shall live and who shall die."
The president ended the call by wishing the rabbis "shanah tovah," or happy new year — in reference to the High Holidays a month from now.

http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main...rticleID=11291

miJEWtiae
By ADAM KREDO, Rockville, Md
akredo@washingtonjewishweek.com

---

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

'God's partners in matters of life and death'

Adam Kredo

President Barack Obama needs some outside help pushing health care reform, and he's turning to rabbis to get it.

In a morning conference call with about 1000 rabbis from across the nation, Obama asked for aid: "I am going to need your help in accomplishing necessary reform," the President told the group, according to Rabbi Jack Moline, who tweeted his way through the phoner.

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama went on to say, according to Moline's real-time stream.

The 15-minute morning briefing was sponsored by the Religion Action Center of Reform Judaism, and included rabbis of all persuasions. Although the RAC hosts the call each year, participants had never before heard from a sitting president.

What stood out about the call is that Obama "is a master communicator," Moline, the rabbi of the Conservative Agudas Achim Congregation in Alexandria, said in an interview after the call ended.

"This was clearly a message that was tailored to us," and not merely a generic stump speech, he added.

Moline noted that in the lead up to the president's address, as the rabbis waited on hold, "there was a lot of chatter" among some participants who felt that the call should be seen as an opportunity "to instruct the President about [Presidential Medal of Freedom selection] Mary Robinson" and about the peace process in the Middle East.

"It was the subject of a good deal of conversation whether anyone was going to challenge him on that," in particular Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism, whose publicly chided Obama for his administration's stance on settlements.

When the issues failed to come up during the health care call, Moline pithily tweeted: "Yoffie praises President and does not raise any other issue. Good for him."

"Rabbi Yoffie stuck to the subject" of health care reform, Moline said in the interview, "I think it was a good thing."

Eyebrows were also raised by the choice of hold music that played to rabbis before the call began.

"First mistake," Moline tweeted, as he waited for the call to begin. "Music on hold is 'Deutschland uber Alles,' " a classical German anthem, the lyrics to which in part say, "Preserve and protect our Kaiser, our land."

(The music was chosen by the company carrying the conference call, not the White House or the RAC.)

A questioned submitted by Moline also was asked to the President, the rabbi proudly noted on Twitter, writing, "WOW! My question was asked of the President!!!!!"

The question, he later explained, was about how rabbis can address issue of health care reform "in a non partisan" way when they're behind the pulpit.

Obama responded by noting that the massive "human toll" of a broken health care system is a non partisan issue, and simply is unacceptable, Moline recalled.

The call, which was closed to the media, precedes another Obama phoner that is to take place at 5 p.m. this evening (Wednesday).

http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...life-and-death

Obama: “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.”
By Jim Geraghty

August 24, 2009 5:22 P.M.

Comments 0



Obama, on conference call with a group of rabbis, last week: “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.”
How do you want to tee this one up?
1) “If George W. Bush had said it . . .”
2) Yes, but we know who is the managing partner in Obama’s arrangement.
3) Sure, but determining when life begins is still above your pay grade, huh?
4) This philosophy applies to our use of Predator drones in the skies over Pakistan, yes?
5) Is this going in the new Veterans Affairs booklets?
6) So God wants some people to just take a painkiller?
7) Poetic, and inspiring . . . but, uh, what does it mean? Isn’t this a statement so generic that even the bad guys we’re fighting in the war on terror could adopt it?

Looks like it to me..... but what do I know?

[vector7]

Companion Thread and Post:

• The End of Christian America
  
• DOJ Sues School for Denying Teacher Leave for Muslim Pilgrimage

DOJ: Christian Business Owners Have No Religious Freedom Rights



by Dr. Susan Berry 29 Oct 2012, 11:45 AM PDT post a comment

The Department of Justice has responded to a lawsuit brought against the Obama administration by Hobby Lobby Stores, a Christian-owned, self-insured business that has argued that ObamaCare’s HHS mandate forces it “to violate their deeply held religious beliefs under threat of heavy fines, penalties, and lawsuits.”

In its brief, the DOJ responds that businesspersons have no constitutional rights to freedom of religion. From the brief:

Hobby Lobby is a for-profit, secular employer, and a secular entity by definition does not exercise religion. Even if a secular entity could exercise religion within the meaning of [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] RFRA, the preventive services coverage regulations still do not substantially burden the company’s or its owners’ exercise of religion for an independent reason: any burden caused by the regulations is simply too attenuated to qualify as a substantial burden.

Notice that the administration goes beyond its argument that businesses have no religious freedom rights. The DOJ says that even if a business did have rights to religious freedom, the HHS mandate is not really a “substantial” ethical dilemma, and, in a sense, the government can decide what is a "substantial burden" and what is not.

In the brief’s introduction, DOJ again uses the left’s code words for abortion and contraception, i.e., “women’s preventive health services,” that have been usurped from the field of medicine for political purposes:

Plaintiffs ask this Court to preliminarily enjoin, as to plaintiffs, regulations that are intended to help ensure that women have access to health coverage, without cost-sharing, for certain preventive services that medical experts have deemed necessary for women’s health and well-being.

Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the non-profit, public interest law firm that represents Hobby Lobby, said, “The Green family is asking to continue to live their faith by not paying for drugs that might cause abortions.” Windham charged that the DOJ is claiming “that the Greens must comply- and pay for abortion-causing drugs- or pay millions of dollars in fines.”

Windham observes that the Obama administration has already exempted others from health plans, yet it is forcing a family-owned business to violate the tenets of that family’s faith.

“By being required to make a choice between sacrificing our faith or paying millions of dollars in fines, we essentially must choose which poison pill to swallow,” said David Green, CEO and founder of Hobby Lobby Stores. “We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.”

The company, which boasts more than 13,000 full-time employees who are eligible for health insurance coverage, states that if it fails to comply with the mandate, beginning January 1, 2013, it will incur fines of up to $1.3 million per day.

A hearing is set for November 1st in US District Court in Oklahoma.

Muslims Exempt from ObamaCare?

October 14, 2011 By Eric Burns Comments (30)



Are American Muslims exempt from the requirement to purchase health insurance under the individual mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)?

There has been a lot of talk, and a number of Internet rumors, to the effect that Muslims are exempt from the PPACA’s individual mandate; that Muslims will get free health care under the PPACA, while the non-Muslim population of the United States will be required to purchase government administered health insurance. Therefore, according to rumor, non-Muslim Americans will be paying for American Muslims’ health care; in other words “dhimmitude.”

There is even a rumor that the word “dhimmitude” –used to denote subservience to Islam by non-Muslims, is actually used—on p. 107 of H.R. 3590 of the PPACA bill.

The rumors of free health care for Muslims are based on Shariah law’s prohibition on insurance. Insurance violates the tenets against riba (interest); al-maisir (gambling) and al-gharar (uncertainty). Interest paid on insurance investments violates Shariah’s rules against usury. Thus, under a strict interpretation of the Koran, Muslims are exempt from ObamaCare. However, the talk and the rumors are false—the word “dhimmitude” isn’t used anywhere in H.R. 3590, and depending on how PPACA rules are applied, there is at least an even chance that the scenario of American Muslims being exempt from the requirement to purchase insurance under the individual mandate won’t play out.

To be sure, the PPACA does grant a number of exemptions from the requirement to purchase the “minimum essential coverage.” (Whatever that is — Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hasn’t yet defined it.) Prisoners, illegal aliens, and foreign nationals are exempt. In addition, there is a religious exemption. Under Subtitle F, Part I, Section 1501—the individual responsibility requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage—individuals must be “a member of a recognized religious sect” that doesn’t participate in Social Security. According to a January 2011 Heritage Foundation WebMemo, they must pay no Social Security taxes and receive none of the benefits, in accordance with Section 1402(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. The religious exemption applies to any person who is a member of a “recognized religious sect or division” with “established tenets or teachings” that would forbid that person from accepting public or private insurance. Thus the Amish, who believe in taking care of their own elderly and don’t participate in Social Security, are exempt, as are Mennonites and Scientologists.

The monetary penalty for failure to purchase the “minimum essential coverage” is the larger of a flat dollar amount or a percentage of income between 1.0 and 2.5 percent. The penalty is phased in over a three year period, 2014-2016. The flat dollar amount is $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016. Individuals whose earnings are below the Federal poverty level are eligible for a “hardship” exemption from the penalty, which is determined by HHS Secretary Sebelius. Indian tribes are also exempt from the penalty. In addition, there is an “affordability” exemption that applies to workers whose out-of-pocket costs exceed 8 percent of their “household” income.

Where do American Muslims stand regarding the individual mandate’s religious exemption? Under a strict interpretation of the Koran, which forbids acceptance of public or private insurance, they are exempt under this loophole. However, since the great majority of American Muslims pay Social Security taxes and receive Social Security benefits, they don’t qualify for the religious exemption. Nevertheless, PPACA rules offer a situation where American Muslims could qualify for the religious exemption. If an individual is a member of a “health-sharing ministry,”—a religious non-profit organization in which members contribute money to cover the medical expenses of those in need—they are exempt from the requirement to purchase insurance.

Health sharing ministries exemplify the Muslim principle of Takaful –individuals cooperating and protecting one another against loss or damage. This writer knows of no such health sharing ministry organizations in the U.S. at present. However, as of December 2008, Risk Specialists Companies, Inc., a subsidiary of AIG Commercial Insurance, has offered Lexington Takaful Solutions SM Takaful homeowners insurance, which includes health insurance. This is part of a series of Shariah-compliant insurance products in the U.S. The Takaful homeowners policy is underwritten by RSC member company A.I. Risk Specialists Insurance, Inc., in conjunction with Lexington Insurance Company, and is available in all 50 states. However, why was this provision—that members of health sharing ministries qualify for the religious exemption—put in H.R. 3590 in the first place? What happens when American Muslims, who participate in the Social Security system, join a “health-sharing ministry”?

The law is vague on this point. Presumably, they will be exempt from the requirement to purchase insurance under the religious exemption. Should this happen, the scenario of American Muslims being exempt from the requirement to purchase insurance, while the great majority of Americans labor under this requirement, will bring “dhimmitude” a big step closer to reality. In addition, what if the PPACA is amended in some way to exempt those who purchase private Takaful health insurance? The health-sharing ministry loophole is one reason, among many, why ObamaCare is unacceptable for Americans and must be removed from H.R. 3590.

[vector7]

Obama to cut medical benefits for active, retired military, not union workers

February 28, 2012
By: Joe Newby



In an effort to cut defense spending, the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and their families while not touching the benefits enjoyed by unionized civilian defense workers.

The move, congressional aides suggested, is to force those individuals into Obamacare, Bill Gertz reported at the Washington Beacon.

Gertz added:

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Not everybody is happy with the plan, however.

Military personnel would see their annual Tricare premiums increase anywhere from 30 - 78 percent in the first year, followed by sharply increased premiums "ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels."

"According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048," Gertz wrote.

Active duty military personnel would also see an increased cost for pharmaceuticals, and the incentive to use less expensive generic drugs would be gone.

Health benefits has long been a prime reason many stay in the military - but some in the Pentagon fear the new rules will hamper recruitment and retention.

“Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not,” one aide said.

John Hayward of Human Events adds:

Veterans will also be hit with a new annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, on top of the monthly premiums they already pay, while some benefits will become “means-tested” in the manner of a social program – treating them like welfare instead of benefits for military service. Naturally, this is all timed to begin next year and “avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year,” according to critics.

There will be congressional hearings on the new military health care policies next month. Opposition is building in Congress, and among veterans’ organizations, including the VFW, which has “called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the health care increases.”

Others are concerned about the double standard being set between uniformed military personnel - who are not unionized - and civilian defense workers who belong to public sector unions.

Gertz wrote:

A second congressional aide said the administration’s approach to the cuts shows a double standard that hurts the military.

“We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity,” this aide said. “But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget.”

The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. “And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you’ve held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts. And it just doesn’t seem fair,” the second aide said.

At least one Congressman is standing with the military on this issue.

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee.

“We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more,” he added.

McKeon will be joined by some 5 million members of 32 military service and veterans groups, according to retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley of the Military Officers Association of America, who called the plan "a breach of faith."

The Beacon also noted the curious timing of the plan, which is set to begin next year - after the 2012 elections. Critics say this is designed so as not to upset military voters.

It's one more reason Barack Hussein Obama does not deserve to be re-elected in November.

[American Patriot]

I told you months ago this was coming.

[vector7]

John Boehner: ‘Obamacare is the law of the land’



Boehner’s office quickly tried to walk back his comments. | AP Photo

By DAVID NATHER | 11/8/12 6:31 PM EST

House Speaker John Boehner made it official Thursday: Obamacare isn’t going anywhere.

In an interview with ABC News, Boehner seemed to suggest the election ended any efforts to wipe out the whole law. When “World News” anchor Diane Sawyer asked if there would be any more votes to repeal the law, Boehner said “the election changes that” and “Obamacare is the law of the land.”

He said, however, that some parts of the law should still be on the table when lawmakers start negotiating a deficit deal.

Boehner’s office quickly tried to walk back his comments within minutes after ABC News posted a story on the interview.

“While Obamacare is the law of the land, it is costing us jobs and threatening our health care. Speaker Boehner and House Republicans remain committed to repealing the law, and he said in the interview it would be on the table,” Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said in a statement.

Boehner pushed back on Twitter, too: "ObamaCare is the law of the land, but it is raising costs and hurting #smallbiz. Our goal remains #fullrepeal.”

Boehner’s office also released a transcript of that part of the interview, in which Boehner says: “I think there are parts of the healthcare law that are gonna be very difficult to implement. And very expensive. And [at] the time when we're tryin' to find a way to create a path toward a balanced budget everything has to be on the table.”

He adds: “There certainly may be parts of it that we believe need to be changed. We may do that. No decisions at this point.”

In a way, Boehner was just acknowledging the obvious: With President Barack Obama back in the White House for another four years, and the Senate still firmly in Democratic hands, a full repeal of the health care law is out of the question. Targeted repeal of unpopular parts of the law — or efforts to scale back some parts — might be a different story.

But by declaring that “Obamacare is the law of the land,” Boehner may have gone further to acknowledge a painful truth than many Republicans really would have liked.

[Ryan Ruck]

Dear God do I want Boehner out as Speaker.

I hereby nominate Allen West! Even if he loses his recount effort, the Speaker does not need to be an actual member of the House.

[vector7]

Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

By Maggie Fox, NBC News

Long-awaited federal rules for health insurance plans came out Tuesday, and they make clear that insurance plans that people can buy on the open market next year will look a lot like some of the most popular plans on offer now – with a few big differences.

As the 2010 health reform law requires, insurers will no longer be able to dump patients who are starting to cost too much, they won’t be able to charge women more than men, they have to cover anyone who can pay and they’ll have to pay for maternity care, eye exams for kids and for mental health services.

“Insurers will not be able to charge someone more just because she is sick or because she used to be sick,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters on a conference call.

The new rules from the Health and Human Services Department cover the new state exchanges, where people will be able to buy health insurance starting in 2014.

The rules lay out how much extra insurers can charge to cover certain groups of people, like smokers and people who are older. They also say when states outline so-called essential health benefits – the minimums of what health insurers should cover – they should use the best existing plans as a guideline. HHS also issued some guidelines for employers and insurers who want to offer wellness programs, which encourage people to keep themselves healthy.

The first batch of new rules have long-expected provisions forbidding insurers to discriminate against patients who already have diseases such as cancer, asthma or heart disease. “Today, as many as 129 million—or one in two—non-elderly Americans have some type of pre-existing health condition, ranging from life-threatening illnesses like cancer to chronic conditions like diabetes, asthma, or heart disease,” HHS said in a statement.

“In most states, these consumers can be denied individual health insurance coverage or have benefits for medical conditions excluded by insurance companies. In addition, individuals and small employers often find that they have few protections against exorbitant premiums increases.”

charge the oldest customers as much as five times more in premiums as the youngest adult customers. HHS stuck with a proposal that allows insurers to charge the oldest patients three times as much as they charge a 21-year-old. And the rates can go up a little bit with every birthday. But smokers can be charged premiums that are five times higher under the new rules.

“Under the law, states can choose to enact stronger consumer protections than these minimum standards. In addition, starting in 2017, states have the option of allowing large employers to purchase coverage through the Exchanges,” HHS adds.

The health insurance exchanges are meant to be the main place that adults under 65 can buy health insurance if they don’t get covered through an employer. The 2010 Affordable Care Act is meant to improve coverage and lower costs by getting millions more Americans health insurance so they get medical care earlier, before before easy-to-treat conditions like high blood pressure can cause expensive strokes or heart attacks.

Right now, about 48 million Americans go without health insurance, according to the Census Bureau. That’s more than 15 percent of the population. About 55 percent of Americans are covered through an employer; 31 percent have a public insurance plan such as Medicare or Medicaid, and 10 percent buy their own health insurance.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that 23 million people who don’t have health insurance now will get it on one of the exchanges. More than 18 million of them will qualify for a federal subsidy averaging $6,000 a year per person. People earning up to four times the federal poverty level can get a subsidy: that’s an income of $92,000 a year for a family of four.

The rules on so-called essential health benefits –specific services that insurers have to offer and conditions they must cover -- include 10 areas: Ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services and devices, laboratory services, preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

“The proposed rule defines essential health benefits based on a state-specific benchmark plan, including the largest small group health plan in the state,” HHS says. These can be the largest plan, for instance, or the largest commercial health maintenance organization in a state.

For instance, if the state’s chosen benchmark plan pays for just one drug for a certain condition, so may all the plans offered on the exchange. If that benchmark plan pays for three different drugs, so will all the plans.

And HHS also set how much each level of plan – platinum, gold, silver and bronze – may require patients to pay out of pocket. Beginning in 2014, so-called bronze plans can ask patients to pay 40 percent of costs; 30 percent for a silver, 20 percent for a gold; the top-level platinum plans must pay 90 percent of patient costs. The platinum level plans may charge higher premiums, while the bronze plans will be the cheapest in terms of monthly premiums.

Finally, the rules encourage wellness plans. “Programs must be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease," HHS says. “Programs must have a reasonable chance of improving health or preventing disease and not be overly burdensome for individuals.” The plans can reward patients who lower their cholesterol, for instance, by cutting premiums.

But the rules do not specify the types of wellness programs employers can offer.

States were originally supposed to say whether they would design their own insurance exchanges by last Friday, or if they will let the federal government do it, but HHS has extended the deadlines. States now can declare what they intend to do by December 14.

So-called open enrollment starts in October 2013, and plans offered on the exchanges should begin providing coverage in Jan. 1, 2014. But the rules have been so late in coming out, and the states have delayed their decisions for so long, that some critics say they doubt the federal government or state states wil be ready on time. HHS’s Gary Cohen denies this. “Absolutely, we will be ready. There will be an exchange in every state open for business on October 1 of next year,” he said.

[Ryan Ruck]

Doctor Shortage Could Take Turn For The Worse

October 20, 2012

The U.S. is currently facing a severe shortage of doctors.

The Association of American Medical Colleges predicts that by 2020, the shortage will amount to more than 90,000 doctors, including 45,000 patient care physicians. Why such a shortfall? The baby boom generation is getting older and will require more medical care in the coming years. The newly enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will soon require most people to obtain health insurance, leading millions more to seek care. Finally, a third of all doctors plan to retire this decade.

24/7 Wall St. looked at the 10 states with the highest ratio of patient care physicians and the 10 states with the lowest. The differences are stark. Massachusetts had 314.8 patient care doctors for every 100,000 residents. On the other hand, Mississippi had just 159.4, or just half the figure for Massachusetts.

States with a higher doctor-to-resident ratio share some common attributes. Generally, the states with high median incomes tend to have more doctors per capita, while poorer states tend to have substantially fewer. Among the 10 states with the most practicing physicians per capita are five of the six wealthiest states by median income in the country.

The ability to pay has a major influence on whether people have health insurance. Each of the 10 states with the highest concentration of doctors has uninsured rates lower than the national rate of 15.5%, while seven of the 10 states at the bottom have uninsured rates higher than the national rate. When doctors treat insured patients they are paid more than when they treat uninsured patients, incentivizing them to move to highly insured states.

"Most of [the uninsured] are choosing to not get insurance because they can't afford it, and so you're not likely to get paid, at least paid fully, from those patients," AAMC's chief policy officer Atul Glover told 24/7 Wall St. He notes that although the new federal health law will expand Medicaid coverage, the program, along with Medicare, tends to pay physicians between 30% and 40% less than private insurance companies.

Many of the states with high doctor-to-patient ratios also have a larger number of students who perform their residency in the state relative to the size of the population. This also signifies the ample medical facilities in which to practice medicine in the state. Six of the top 10 states are in the top 10 for the number of medical residents per 100,000 people. Meanwhile, six of the bottom 10 states are in the bottom 10 for medical residents.

A state's doctor-to-patient ratio has significant consequences. The states with the most patient care physicians per capita also tend to be healthier states, and vice versa, Glover said. And statistics back that up. For instance, all but one state in the top 10 had a longer life expectancy than the country's 78.6 years, with four of the states in the top 10 for life span. Meanwhile, all but two states in the bottom 10 had a shorter life expectancy than the national average, with five of the states in the bottom 10 for life span. States with high doctor-to-resident ratios tend to have lower smoking rates and fewer people who are either overweight or obese than those with low doctor-to-patient ratios.

Both medical schools and governments are trying to find solutions for the shortage of doctors. Some medical schools are expanding enrollment, although that is difficult to accomplish due to cutbacks in federal funds. Others state governments are considering programs that would pay patient care doctors to go to underserved areas for designated periods of time. This is similar to the National Health Service Corps., which will help pay off medical school loans for graduates who go to certain underserved states for two to four years.

[Ryan Ruck]

In the UK now but, just you wait...

Now Sick Babies Go On Death Pathway: Doctor's Haunting Testimony Reveals How Children Are Put On End-Of-Life Plan

November 28, 2012

Sick children are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’.

Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill adults.

But the Mail can reveal the practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.

One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an independent inquiry ordered by ministers.

The investigation, which will include child patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions.

Medical critics of the LCP insist it is impossible to say when a patient will die and as a result the LCP death becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it is a form of euthanasia, used to clear hospital beds and save the NHS money.

The use of end of life care methods on disabled newborn babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical Journal.

Earlier this month, an un-named doctor wrote of the agony of watching the protracted deaths of babies. The doctor described one case of a baby born with ‘a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies’, whose parents agreed to put it on the pathway.

The doctor wrote: ‘They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped. They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious baby.

‘Their wishes, however, are not consistent with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days.

‘Parents and care teams are unprepared for the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical appearance as severe dehydration ensues.

‘I know, as they cannot, the unique horror of witnessing a child become smaller and shrunken, as the only route out of a life that has become excruciating to the patient or to the parents who love their baby.’

According to the BMJ article, the doctor involved had presided over ten such deaths in just one hospital neonatal unit.

In a response to the article, Dr Laura de Rooy, a consultant neonatologist at St George’s Hospital NHS Trust in London writing on the BMJ website, said: ‘It is a huge supposition to think they do not feel hunger or thirst.’

The LCP for children has been developed in the North West, where the LCP itself was pioneered in the 1990s. It involves the discharge to home or to a hospice of children who are given a document detailing their ‘end of life’ care.

One seen by the Mail, called ‘Liverpool Pathway for the Dying Child’ is issued by the Royal Liverpool Children’s NHS Trust in conjunction with the flagship children’s hospital Alder Hey. It includes tick boxes, filled out by hospital doctors, on medicines, nutrients and fluids to be stopped.

The LCP was devised by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool for care of dying adult patients more than a decade ago. It has since been developed, with paediatric staff at Alder Hey Hospital, to cover children. Parents have to agree to their child going on the death pathway, often being told by doctors it is in the child’s ‘best interests’ because their survival is ‘futile’.

Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice paediatric nurse, has written to the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health to criticise the use of death pathways for children.

She said: ‘The parents feel coerced, at a very traumatic time, into agreeing that this is correct for their child whom they are told by doctors has only has a few days to live. It is very difficult to predict death. I have seen a “reasonable” number of children recover after being taken off the pathway.

‘I have also seen children die in terrible thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die.

‘I witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give him liquids by tube. His death was agonising for him, and for us nurses to watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.’

Alder Hey confirmed that children and babies are discharged for LCP end of life care ‘after all possible reversible causes for the patient’s condition are considered’.

‘There is a care pathway to enable a dying child to be supported by the local medical and nursing teams in the community, in line with the wishes of the child patients, where appropriate, and always their parents or carers.’ Alder Hey said children were not put on the LCP within the hospital itself.

Teresa Lynch, of protest group Medical Ethics Alliance, said: ‘There are big questions to be answered about how our sick children are dying.’

A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘End of life care for children must meet the highest professional and clinical standards, and the specific needs of children at the end of their life.

'Staff must always communicate with the patient and the patient’s family, and involve them in all aspects of decision making.’

[vector7]

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family

January 31, 2013
By Matt Cover


President Barack Obama hugs HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after signing the Obamacare law on March 23, 2010. (White House photo/Pete Souza)

(CNSNews.com)– In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare--after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.

In the new final rules published Wednesday, IRS set in law the rules for implementing the penalty Americans must pay if they fail to obey Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance.

To help illustrate these rules, the IRS presented examples of different situations families might find themselves in.

In the examples, the IRS assumes that families of five who are uninsured would need to pay an average of $20,000 per year to purchase a Bronze plan in 2016.

Using the conditions laid out in the regulations, the IRS calculates that a family earning $120,000 per year that did not buy insurance would need to pay a "penalty" (a word the IRS still uses despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is in fact a "tax") of $2,400 in 2016.

For those wondering how clear the IRS's clarifications of this new "penalty" rule are, here is one of the actual examples the IRS gives:

“Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage.

"(i) In 2016, Taxpayers H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L, age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for any month in 2016. H and J’s household income is $120,000. H and J’s applicable filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.

"(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2 children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 - $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of $173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).

"(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12). Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).”


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-...e-20000-family

[vector7]

Obama friend, fmr. leader of Soros-funded group, receives $340 million to run ObamaCare exchanges
3/1/2013 | Kirsten Anderson

NEW YORK CITY, March 1, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – An insurance company known for not keeping its contractual obligations has received $340 million in federal loans to set up a health care exchange under ObamaCare. Critics say the only apparent criteria for the loan is the fact that the company is led by a friend of Barack Obama during his community organizer days. She is also a former leader of a George Soros-funded politically radical organization.

The confluence of incompetence, cronyism, and political donations have many asking if the arrangement is above-board – and what that signals about America's future after the health care industry is rearranged.

Congress has opened an inquiry into the eligibility of President Obama’s close friend Sara Horowitz and her embattled health insurance company to receive $340 million in taxpayer-funded loans.



Horowitz, a former labor lawyer and community organizer, heads the Freelancers’ Union and the related Freelancers’ Insurance Company (FIC).

Despite the name, the Freelancers’ Union is not a union. It is the parent organization of Horowitz’s for-profit health insurance company, which serves 200,000+ customers, mostly freelancers who are ineligible for benefits through their employers.

FIC has been rated the “worst” insurer in New York for the past two years by state regulators, and has weathered numerous public relations and customer service crises since it launched in 2008. The company is so unpopular it has spawned its own hate blog, “Upset Freelancers’ Union Members,” where those who buy their healthcare from FIC meet to complain, strategize, and give each other tips on how to navigate labyrinthine restrictions and try to get results from the notoriously frustrating customer service hotline.

In 2011, the New York State Insurance Department ranked FIC dead last in customer satisfaction among insurers. Despite its relatively small size, FIC had the most complaints of all the state’s insurance providers. Last year, FIC again ranked “worst” in complaints. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners says FIC’s complaint rate is more than seven times the national average.

In half the complaints lodged against FIC by its customers, the insurance department ruled that “the health insurer did not comply with statutory or contractual obligations.”

None of this stopped the Obama administration from handing Horowitz a $340 million loan from the American taxpayers to start ObamaCare health care cooperatives.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Horowitz’s loan is the single largest payout given under a little-known ObamaCare program that will pay about $2 billion to establish 24 such co-ops, which will compete against private insurers and state health insurance exchanges.

The tax-free loans are administrated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Consumer Insurance Information and Oversight (CCIIO).

Horowitz’s payday has raised eyebrows in Washington, leading some to question the screening process for loan applicants, and fueling criticisms of cronyism in the White House.

Horowitz is a longtime close friend of Obama’s. When he was in the Illinois state senate, Horowitz and Obama worked together to launch the George Soros-funded liberal think tank Demos, a group that worked hand-in-hand with the controversial ACORN community organizing group, which Obama also worked alongside with its voter registration program, Project Vote.

Horowitz isn’t the only one getting the side-eye over her connections to Obama and subsequent taxpayer-funded payday. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that another recipient of a $56.4 million loan, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative in Wisconsin, “is the Milwaukee affiliate of the Industrial Areas Foundation, founded in 1940 by Saul Alinsky, a famed community organizer and author of Rules for Radicals. The organization, based in Chicago, bills itself as the oldest and largest community organizing network.” The group got much of its initial funding from the Gamaliel Foundation, Obama’s former employer in Chicago.

“The question you have to ask, what [are] the screening criteria, if any, or on what basis are these awards based?” said Thomas P. Miller, a health care expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

It’s difficult to find concrete information about how CCIIO screened applicants for the co-op loans. The agency’s website says, “CO-OP applicants underwent background checks that included public records searches at the local, state, and national level as well as searches of federal debarment databases.”

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson said he thought the main criterion was a previous connection to Obama. “The Saul Alinsky-affiliated, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative of Wisconsin was formed in August, 2011, just three short months prior to applying for the taxpayer money,” said Wilson. “In true Rules for Radicals fashion, Obama’s administration found this group worthy of receiving $56,416,000 in taxpayer largesse.”

“These grants/loans reek of political payola,” Wilson said.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/oba...million-to-run

[Phil Fiord]

I'd like to say unbelievable. I cannot.

[vector7]

Obamacare official: “Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience”

March 22, 2013


Patients gather outside the Virginia-Kentucky Fairgrounds for their turn to enter the Remote Area Medical (RAM) Health Expedition in Wise, Va., July 24, 2009. Photo by Paul Morse for AARP Bulletin Today

With time-running out before the major provisions of President Obama’s health care law are set to be implemented, the official tasked with making sure the law’s key insurance exchanges are up and running is already lowering expectations.

“The time for debating about the size of text on the screen or the color or is it a world-class user experience, that’s what we used to talk about two years ago,” Henry Chao, an official at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services who is overseeing the technology of the exchanges said at a recent conference. “Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.”

Chao also described himself as “nervous.” His comments, which came at a policy meeting of insurance industry lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans, were first reported by CQ Health Beat and picked up by Avik Roy at Forbes.The idea of regulated insurance exchanges, on which eligible individuals can use government subsidies to purchase insurance coverage, is central to the law. By 2023, the Congressional Budget Office projects that 25 million Americans will obtain coverage through the exchanges.

The CQ article also quotes Gary Cohen, director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, as conceding that the exchanges may not be fully functional in all 50 states in time. “I think it’s only prudent to not assume everything is going to work perfectly on day one and to make sure that we’ve got plans in place to address things that may happen,” Cohen said.