Healthcare Hypocricy?

[RoyalShock]

I agree, SB, something needs to be done. The problem is that because it's the government doing something it doesn't follow any free-market principles. So what we'll get is either increased costs due to all the mandates, or cost controls leading to the elimination of any sense of competition in the market, resulting in care that is subpar, rationed and will take much longer to receive.

Then the government gets involved further, attempting to be the solution for something of which it is the cause (by way of not targeting the real problems).

Who is going to want to be a doctor in that environment? My guess is we'll eventually see, with a few exceptions, a majority of medical degree recipients who, in today's system, would be among the lower tier.

I can't wait.

[ShockBand]

On the subject of competition, do we really have any now in our current system? I think one of the challenges of competition within health care is the fact that we don't have the mindset of "shopping" for health care, since we never really see the true cost of things in most cases. And when care is needed urgently is one going to be able to spend the time to shop around? You could more easily do that with elective non-emergency things, but in critical care I would think it gets more dicey.

I'm certainly not comfortable with more government involvement in health care, but I'm not so sure I really trust insurance companies, big pharma, and corporate medical care entities either.

Even though its just for primary care, all this does make the concierge approach like at Atlas MD in Wichita certainly worth a deeper look.

[1979Shocker]

Poll: Support for Healthcare Repeal Drops, but Opposition Remains

A new poll shows that support for repealing the contentious healthcare reform bill has dropped and only a minority of Americans oppose it.

An Associated Press-GFK poll, released Monday, found that only about 1 in 4 people support repealing the law. Opposition to the law is also down to 41 percent, compared to 47 percent of Americans that were against it after the November congressional election.

Support for the 2010 healthcare law is now at 40 percent, up from 38 percent after the November election.

The news comes as the Republican House leadership seeks to resume congressional business on Tuesday, which also means that Republicans are once again pushing forward a bill to repeal the healthcare law.

Two New Obamacare Polls Have High Numbers of Democrats, Misleading Questions

Republicans are backing off too.

AP-GfK Poll: Raw emotions ease over Obama's health care overhaul; 1 in 4 back complete repeal

The poll finds that 40 per cent of those surveyed said they support the law, while 41 per cent oppose it. Just after the November congressional elections, opposition stood at 47 per cent and support was 38 per cent.

As for repeal, only about one in four say they want to do away with the law completely. Among Republicans support for repeal has dropped sharply, from 61 per cent after the elections to 49 per cent now.
Also, 43 per cent say they want the law changed so it does more to re-engineer the health care system. Fewer than one in five say it should be left as it is.

[RoyalShock]

On the subject of competition, do we really have any now in our current system? I think one of the challenges of competition within health care is the fact that we don't have the mindset of "shopping" for health care, since we never really see the true cost of things in most cases. And when care is needed urgently is one going to be able to spend the time to shop around? You could more easily do that with elective non-emergency things, but in critical care I would think it gets more dicey.

I'm certainly not comfortable with more government involvement in health care, but I'm not so sure I really trust insurance companies, big pharma, and corporate medical care entities either.

Even though its just for primary care, all this does make the concierge approach like at Atlas MD in Wichita certainly worth a deeper look.

And that's essentially what I'm saying. We need more open competition in healthcare. We need to have a "shop around" mentality. Providers need to make their charges for services more accessible BEFORE services are rendered, not on a benefits statement the patient gets a month later. Those services need to be more simplified (how many levels of office visit does a general practitioner really need?).

Legislation could have targeted some of those issues for the benefit of the consumer. But instead, it just pretty much handed boatloads of new customers and cash to the insurance companies. Additionally, making it highly likely emmployers will put a larger burden on their employees to cover insurance premiums or in some cases shedding jobs and/or other benefits.

[ShockBand]

On the subject of competition, do we really have any now in our current system? I think one of the challenges of competition within health care is the fact that we don't have the mindset of "shopping" for health care, since we never really see the true cost of things in most cases. And when care is needed urgently is one going to be able to spend the time to shop around? You could more easily do that with elective non-emergency things, but in critical care I would think it gets more dicey.

I'm certainly not comfortable with more government involvement in health care, but I'm not so sure I really trust insurance companies, big pharma, and corporate medical care entities either.

Even though its just for primary care, all this does make the concierge approach like at Atlas MD in Wichita certainly worth a deeper look.

And that's essentially what I'm saying. We need more open competition in healthcare. We need to have a "shop around" mentality. Providers need to make their charges for services more accessible BEFORE services are rendered, not on a benefits statement the patient gets a month later. Those services need to be more simplified (how many levels of office visit does a general practitioner really need?).

Legislation could have targeted some of those issues for the benefit of the consumer. But instead, it just pretty much handed boatloads of new customers and cash to the insurance companies. Additionally, making it highly likely employers will put a larger burden on their employees to cover insurance premiums or in some cases shedding jobs and/or other benefits.

I agree more awareness of true cost should be a key element, and my school district's insurance plan is doing that by making prescriptions subject to deductible instead of just copays. And certainly most of what I've seen in the new health care plan is worrisome as a government thing, even if the intent is good. (That is like NCLB - good intent, poor implmentation) But what do we do about true emergency care? If I'm having a heart attack or injured in a car wreck (God forbid) I'm not really in a position to shop around, and may not even be able to specify a preselected choice if I'm incapacitated. And what about in rural areas where access to care is often very limited to begin with? Just asking some devil's advocate questions.

[Maggie]

Poll: Support for Healthcare Repeal Drops, but Opposition Remains

A new poll shows that support for repealing the contentious healthcare reform bill has dropped and only a minority of Americans oppose it.

An Associated Press-GFK poll, released Monday, found that only about 1 in 4 people support repealing the law. Opposition to the law is also down to 41 percent, compared to 47 percent of Americans that were against it after the November congressional election.

Support for the 2010 healthcare law is now at 40 percent, up from 38 percent after the November election.

The news comes as the Republican House leadership seeks to resume congressional business on Tuesday, which also means that Republicans are once again pushing forward a bill to repeal the healthcare law.

Two New Obamacare Polls Have High Numbers of Democrats, Misleading Questions

Republicans are backing off too.

AP-GfK Poll: Raw emotions ease over Obama's health care overhaul; 1 in 4 back complete repeal

The poll finds that 40 per cent of those surveyed said they support the law, while 41 per cent oppose it. Just after the November congressional elections, opposition stood at 47 per cent and support was 38 per cent.

As for repeal, only about one in four say they want to do away with the law completely. Among Republicans support for repeal has dropped sharply, from 61 per cent after the elections to 49 per cent now.
Also, 43 per cent say they want the law changed so it does more to re-engineer the health care system. Fewer than one in five say it should be left as it is.

I don't buy it, sorry.

[SubGod22]

Advocacy Group Reacts to Health-Care Repeal

The House is expected to vote today on H.R. 2 - legislation to repeal the health care overhaul law. SBE Council delivered a Key Vote letter to every member of the U.S. House, which urges a vote in favor of H.R. 2. Following the vote on H.R. 2, which is expected to pass, SBE Council will then begin working with Republicans and Democrats on an alternative reform framework that will bring more choice, affordability and innovation to our nation's health care system. (Please note, following passage of H.R. 2, the House will then vote on H.R. 9, which instructs certain committees "to report legislation replacing the job-killing health care law.")

As SBE Council President & CEO Karen Kerrigan noted in the KEY VOTE letter,the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has not lived up to the promises made by its supporters. Entrepreneurs are experiencing higher health costs and fewer coverage options. In addition, small business owners and their employees will not be able to keep the coverage they currently have (as promised by President Obama).

Unfortunately, other provisions in PPACA (set to phase in over the next few years) offer higher taxes, costly penalties and a massive regulatory burden that will diminish the capacity of entrepreneurs to invest and create jobs. "So, on top of exacerbating the longstanding woes of our health care system, PPACA also promises to weigh down small business owners with new costs they cannot afford -- robbing them of their precious time and capital, and impairing economic recovery," wrote Kerrigan in the letter.

She added: "It is clear that employer-sponsored coverage, choice in coverage options, and innovative solutions that promote affordability and wellness are being systematically undermined through the regulatory process governing PPACA's implementation. That is why PPACA's repeal is so vitally important."

Taxpayer Calculator: Health Care

26 States Join Suit Against Obama Health Law

In the Florida case, the states also argue the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it. They say the new law gives the state's the impossible choice of accepting the new costs or forfeiting federal Medicaid funding.

Florida U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson could rule later this month whether he will grant a summary judgment in favor of the states or the Obama administration without a trial.

Florida's former Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The nation's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, also joined the suit.

Joining the coalition in the Florida case were: Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The other states that are suing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

[SubGod22]

Five Myths about New Health Care Law

Myth: The health care law provides universal coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the law still would leave 23 million Americans uninsured by 2019, and the number of uninsured would rise thereafter.

In addition, roughly 47 percent of those who receive coverage under the bill will not be receiving traditional health insurance, but will instead be put into the Medicaid or SCHIP programs.

Given that roughly a third of physicians no longer accept Medicaid patients, these individuals may still find significant barriers to access.

Myth: If you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it.

Although the president reassured us that Americans would not be forced to change their current insurance plans, this appears untrue.

Senior citizens with Medicare Advantage and workers with health savings accounts are the most likely to be forced out of their current plans.

A leaked administration memorandum warns that more than two-thirds of companies could be forced to change their current coverage.

For small businesses, the total could reach 80 percent.

Also, the law's individual mandate requires that everyone's insurance meet strict government requirements, offering the benefits the government thinks you should have, not necessarily the benefits you want.

Myth: The health care law reduces the deficit.

It is true the CBO has officially "scored" the health care bill as costing $950 billion and warns that repealing it would add $230 billion to the deficit. However, those numbers do not tell the whole story, nor do they reveal the bill's true cost.

For example, CBO estimates do not include roughly $115 billion in implementation costs, such as the cost of hiring new IRS agents to enforce the bill's individual mandate.

The CBO estimate also assumes Congress will not repeal an anticipated 23 percent reduction in Medicare spending (the so-called "doc-fix"). But Congress already has postponed those cuts by a year, and no one seriously expects them to remain intact.

A true accounting of all the bill's costs suggests that repeal could actually reduce the budget deficit by as much as $700 billion over 10 years.

Myth: The health care law will reduce your premiums.

Anyone opening their health insurance bills recently can see their premiums are not going down.

In fact, the CBO estimates that premiums could double over the next six to 10 years. Some estimates suggest the new regulations already have added 7 percent to 9 percent to the cost of insurance.

Myth: The health care law is "consumer friendly."

There are some consumer reforms in the bill, but they come with fine print.

For example, parents can now keep their children on their insurance plans until age 26. But that extended coverage is not free.

The Department of Health and Human Services estimates it will cost an estimated $3,380 a year per child.

And since employers are balking at picking up the added cost, parents will have to pay more if they want to continue their children's coverage.

Insurers can no longer refuse coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.

True.

And, in response, insurers in several states have stopped offering child-only insurance plans, depriving thousands of Americans of an inexpensive coverage option.

[SubGod22]

More from Cato on the subject: Health-'Reform' Facts: Lame Defenses and Five Health Reform Whoppers,

[SubGod22]

Idaho Set to Nullify Obama's Health Care Law

BOISE, Idaho -- After leading the nation last year in passing a law to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, Idaho's Republican-dominated Legislature now plans to use an obscure 18th century doctrine to declare President Barack Obama's signature bill null and void.

Lawmakers in six other states -- Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming -- are also mulling "nullification" bills, which contend states, not the U.S. Supreme Court, are the ultimate arbiter of when Congress and the president run amok.

Back in 1799, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his "Kentucky Resolution," a response to federal laws passed amid an undeclared naval war against France, that "nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts... is the rightful remedy."

If the U.S. president, Congress, and the Supreme Court get it wrong, Woods said, then Jefferson had it right back in 1799 when he wrote that states, as creators of the federal government, "being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction."

"What do we do when we don't get proper relief in the court?" Woods told The Associated Press from his home in Auburn, Ala. "We can't just throw up our hands and say, 'We tried.' The creators had to have some way of not having that system destroyed."

For Idaho's Pearce, Obama and the Democratic-led Congress are destroying the American system.

"There are now 27 states that are in on the lawsuit against Obamacare," Pearce said. "What if those 27 states do the same thing we do with nullification? It's a killer."

[SubGod22]

Talk of Replacing ObamaCare Is a Bit Premature

Three things about the Republicans’ “replace” effort:

First, America’s health care sector has historically been handicapped by one political party committed to a policy of (mostly) benign neglect, and another party committed to degrading that sector’s performance through government subsidies, mandates, price controls, and other exchange controls. Republicans now appear to be taking a different posture, and that’s encouraging — but not entirely. When Republicans set their minds to reforming health care, they are often as bad as Democrats. (See the Republican “alternatives” to ClintonCare. Or Medicare Part D. Or #4-#7 above.) Exactly how House Republicans plan to deliver on the above goals remains to be seen.

Second, no matter how House Republicans plan to deliver on the above goals, their proposals will be preferable to ObamaCare. Republicans quite literally could not do worse if they tried.

Third, no matter how good the Republicans’ proposals are, they will be utterly ineffective so long as ObamaCare remains on the books. ObamaCare’s influence is so pervasive and harmful that it makes real health care reform all but impossible.

[1979Shocker]

Florida judge rules health care law unconstitutional

A federal judge has ruled that the health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in March is unconstitutional.

Judge Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee serving in Pensacola, Florida, ruled that key components of the law are unconstitutional and that the entire law "must be declared void."

[wu_shizzle]

The 2012 election just got more interesting. (As if it wasn't already)

Can you imagine President Obama running with his premier piece of legislation having been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

[SB Shock]

The judge uses Obama own words against him

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

[SubGod22]

Justice Dept. Asks Judge to Clarify Health Care Ruling After Alaska Governor Refuses to Enact Law

Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said Thursday he will not implement President Obama's health care overhaul because a federal judge in Florida ruled it unconstitutional, prompting the Justice Department to take the case back to the judge.

Attorneys for the Obama administration filed what is known as a motion to clarify late Thursday, asking U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to make clear that states cannot ignore the new health care law while his ruling is being appealed.