Setting the record straight

[RanchHQ]

Lisa, you need to get that Web Site to Congressman Ross(D-Ark.):



August 20, 2009

Leading Blue Dog: Covering uninsured not top priority of health reform

@ 11:45 am by Jordan Fabian
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said on Wednesday that providing healthcare to uninsured Americans is "not what this healthcare reform debate is about."
In making his comments, Ross, who is the centrist Blue Dogs' health reform point man, questioned one of the primary healthcare goals of the White House and Democratic leaders.

"That is a side benefit to healthcare reform and an important one," Ross told the Arkansas Educational Television Network. Instead, the fifth-term congressman said the bill should focus on "cost containment."

The Energy and Commerce Committee member reiterated that he wants to pass a health reform bill by the end of this year, a desire that may irk some Republicans who supported his effort to slow the bill before August recess.

"The extreme right had a two-week love affair with me," Ross said. "The extreme right, simply, they do not want healthcare reform. And so, they saw me as killing healthcare reform because I put the brakes on
healthcare reform."

The influential fifth-term Democrat identified several provisions that would prevent him from voting for the bill.

On the public option, Ross said he would not vote for a plan that would "force government-run healthcare on anyone. Period." But he also said that the House bill contained a public plan that is "strictly…an option."
Providing government subsides for abortions, coverage for illegal immigrants, rationing of care, and deficit increases comprised Ross' deal-breakers.

"I've got the extreme right and the extreme left angry with me so I must be doing something right," he said.

Ross said the bill should reduce costs by allowing the Medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies and by dropping co-pays for preventitive doctors' visits.

In the end, Ross acknowledged that the House version may not make up the bulk of the final bill. He estimated that 90 percent of the conference committee bill would come from the Senate Finance Committee's version.

LINK: The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room Leading Blue Dog: Covering uninsured not top priority of health reform

[pingtheduck]

Just heard our president saying people were 'bearing false witness" re his health care plan. For shame. How often do you think he uses that term in regular everyday conversation. Strike umpteen. I don't know how I'll ever trust this guy to make the right decisions for us.

[RanchHQ]

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death,"- President Barack Obama.

Well now. The Government is "God's Partners in matters of life and death".

Hum.

"Basic Standard Of Decency" Allows Illegals To Be Treated - President Barack Obama.

I thought they are being treated now.

I am in no mood to Insure Illegals.

[RanchHQ]

Just for Lisa:

(Now we're talking..........)

YouTube - White House FAIL!! (Zo and Crowder victory dance)

YouTube - White House FAIL!! (Zo and Crowder victory dance)

[Maximus]

Lisa for you:

YouTube - Twenty Ten by Lloyd Marcus

YouTube - Twenty Ten by Lloyd Marcus

[Maximus]

Hey Lisa, here's a little something something for you baby. Is this setting the record straight?

YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

[Maximus]

Hey Lisa, baby poochie, peach dumplin' cherry pie. Here's a little somethin' somethin' else for you baby cakes:

YouTube - Our Judeo-Christian Nation

[RanchHQ]

Lisa:

I found rebuttal for just about every point made on that Tax Payer Funded Site produced by The Obama Administration to tout The Obama Administration Plan.

I guess it is their Plan.

You are Welcome, Lisa. Always happy to help a Lost Soul find his/her/transgender/searching way.

Rather than debate the substance, the White House is in full campaign mode in order to label any opposition to its government-heavy health reform agenda as “misinformation” or “myths you’ve heard.” Case in point: The White House now has a taxpayer-funded Web site to “reality check” credible criticisms and arguments. Problem is the videos “debunking” each “myth” are low on facts. See our response below.

YouTube - The Real Impact of the Health Care Reform Bill

YouTube - The Real Impact of the Health Care Reform Bill

88 million will see their coverage disappear

Despite claims from the White House that it’s “disinformation,” the Lewin Group — a health econometrics firm that has been cited by think tanks and lawmakers across the ideological spectrum -- forecasts more than 88 million Americans could see their current employer-based health coverage disappear under the House drafted bill that includes a new public plan. Part of the shift would be the result of employers making the economic decision to drop their current plans in response to financial incentives built into the bill.

Plus, a health plan modeled after Medicare won’t necessarily be more efficient. American taxpayers could end up subsidizing a health plan that would have an unfair advantage in the marketplace, driving many insurers out of the marketplace and limiting patients’ choices.

YouTube - Health Care Reform Bill to Restrict Access to Care

YouTube - Health Care Reform Bill to Restrict Access to Care

Medicaid has a long history of rationing

The creation of a publicly run health insurance option is no laughing matter. Government-run health care programs like Medicaid have a history of low-quality care. By reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, Americans on these programs have a harder time finding a doctor who will accept them as a patient, thus rationing their access to care. The White House might accuse insurers of rationing care, but research shows patients with Medicaid and SCHIP end up in emergency rooms more often than the privately insured and even the uninsured.

YouTube - Impact of Health Care Reform Bill on Medicare Benefits

YouTube - Impact of Health Care Reform Bill on Medicare Benefits

Medicare won't be safe if history is a guide

“Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits,” except the lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have proposed to cut roughly $150 billion from the highly popular Medicare Advantage program, which now enrolls about one out of five senior citizens. These plans in this program provide Medicare patients with richer and more varied benefits than those in traditional Medicare. There are a lot of options the government can do to reign in spending for Medicare, which currently is $38 trillion in the red. But any savings need to go toward lowering Medicare’s long-term cost -- not creating a new government-run health care program.

YouTube - Obama's health reform hurts small businesses

YouTube - Obama's health reform hurts small businesses

Obama's plan will hurt small businesses

Proposed solutions to pay for a new public health care program have included taxing the wealthy. In reality, this will impact thousands of small business owners who are creating the jobs and wages for most Americans. These taxes will hurt small businesses by keeping them from expanding and adding new jobs. It will hurt workers by stagnating wage growth or even eliminating jobs. New research from Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis reveals these new taxes could mean 400,000 employees could lose their job each year. Spending and new taxes will not be the way to bend the health care cost-curve downward. It will only exacerbate the problems businesses already face.

LINK: Fix Health Care Policy | Fact Checking the White House

[Maximus]

Lisa, I know there are some big words in some of these videos but if you put that big brain to work, I bet you can muster a response.

What do you say pumpkin?

[RanchHQ]

Some more for you to ponder, Lisa.

It seemed a bit fishy to me at first so I sent it on to the White House Snitch Site, but then realized that the White house Snitch Site has been yanked.

I wonder why they did that?




Uncommon Sense

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies

Shikha Dalmia, 07.01.09, 12:01 AM EDT


TonySopranoCare.

President Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office with a veritable halo over his head. In the eyes of his backers, he could say or do no wrong because he had evidently descended directly from heaven to return celestial order to our fallen world. Oprah declared his tongue to be "dipped in the unvarnished truth." Newsweek editor Evan Thomas averred that Obama "stands above the country and above the world as a sort of a God."

But when it comes to health care reform, with every passing day, Obama seems less God and more demagogue, uttering not transcendental truths, but bald-faced lies. Here are the top five lies that His Awesomeness has told--the first two for no reason other than to get elected and the next three to sell socialized medicine to a wary nation.

Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force people to buy coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh penalty." What will this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to garnish their wages?" he asked Hillary in one debate.

Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for "making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making employers share in the cost."


But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.

Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."

Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's allegations, McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator's plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.

In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in history.

Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.

Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for the elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public option"--after Medicare in order to control the country's rising health care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal coverage.
But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency.

Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," it noted on page 93.

In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not improve--even the functioning aspects of private plans.

Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.

Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly.

As I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if that weren't Obama's intention.

But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to run for office--and even during the initial days of his campaign--Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What's more, University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker, who is a key influence on the Obama administration, is on tape explicitly boasting that a public plan is a means for creating a single-payer system. "It's not a Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just right there."

But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public plan that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field and without "feeding off the public trough" as Obama claims.

At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit government guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would lose coverage. This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's capital reserve requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private plans. What's more, it is simply not plausible to expect that the plan wouldn't receive any start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle to negotiate lower rates with providers. If it eschewed all these things, there would be no reason for it to exist--because it would be just like any other private plan.

Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.

Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run system wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront under private plans. This is complete nonsense.

The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out an old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact of life because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But there is a big difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access--how much of a particular good I can consume.

By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a scale unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn't be so objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board will then "direct financing" toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with this.

Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health care debate. It is high time he started showing some.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and writes a biweekly column for Forbes.