Leftist Nightmare Update: Costs Of ObamaCare Bungles Start To Add Up, With Maryland First At About $30.5M

Costs Of ObamaCare Bungles Start To Add Up, With Maryland First At About $30.5M – Fox News

Maryland could end up spending as much as $30.5 million as a result of a glitch in its ObamaCare website, as the Obama administration steps in to help states with problematic exchanges.

.

.
Because of Maryland’s defective exchange, the state cannot determine whether customers remain eligible for Medicaid, according to a report by state budget analysts released Thursday.

As a result, the state has agreed with the federal government to a six-month delay in determining eligibility, meaning that payments will continue to be made to customers who are not eligible until the system is fixed. The delay will cost the state $17.8 million in fiscal 2014 and $12.7 million in fiscal 2015, the analysts estimated.

On Friday, the Obama administration said it would suspend some Affordable Care Act rules to help the 14 states with their own ObamaCare sites, particularly Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Oregon, which have had the most problems.

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services plan, completed a day earlier, states the federal government will help pay for “qualified” health-insurance plans for customers in those states who because of “exceptional circumstances” had to buy plans outside of ObamaCare exchanges, as reported first by The Washington Post.

The administration made the change before the end-of-March deadline for Americans to enroll in ObamaCare this year.

In Maryland, the exchange cannot convert income data from the existing Medicaid enrollment system into a calculation needed to review whether enrollees are qualified “because of a variety of system architectural flaws,” according to budge analysts.

The exchange has been plagued by computer problems that have made it difficult for people to enroll in private health care plans since its debut Oct. 1.

State officials have decided to stick with the exchange through the open enrollment period that ends March 31 but is evaluating alternatives with an eye toward the next enrollment period that begins in November.

Among the possibilities is adopting technology developed by another state, joining a consortium of other states, partnering with the federal exchange or making major fixes to the existing system.

Thirty-six states use the federal HealthCare.gov site, which crashed and had other major problems in the first two months of enrollment.

The Maryland report said the state may need to develop an interim solution while a long-term solution is being developed. However, that process would likely take at least nine to 12 months, pushing up against the next open-enrollment period.

The report also states the development of the exchange was “a high risk undertaking” from the outset, in large part because of contractors woes, tight deadlines, constantly evolving requirement and its need to interface with work-in-progress federal databases.

The administration changes this week are not the first to ObamaCare, to be sure.

In November, Obama helped Americans about to lose policies because they didn’t meet new minimum requirements by allow the substandard plans to be sold through the end of this year.

And administration officials has twice this year given medium- and large-sized employers more time to offer health insurance to most full-time workers.

However, the change this week is significant because it marks the first time the federal government has agreed to help pay for policies bought outside the new exchanges.

The coverage in the outside policies would have to be comparable to those offered on the exchange. And customers would have to start paying premiums, then get the subsidies after the state exchanges could determine their income eligibility.

Maryland Health Benefit Exchange official told The Post earlier this week that roughly 7,000 applications are stuck in state’s system, but all of them might not need insurance and that officials were still looking over the administration’s offer.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related article:

.
45-State Study: Obamacare Offers Less Choice, Higher Prices, Breaking Another Promise – Washington Examiner

A new and comprehensive comparison of health insurance options offered by Obamacare versus private websites finds that President Obama’s program offers less choice and higher prices than promised by the White House and leading Democrats.

Adding to the list of broken health care promises, the study from the National Center for Public Policy Research found that there were more and cheaper options available on websites outside the health insurance exchange in 2013 than on healthcare.gov and state Obamacare exchanges.

The report, “Obamacare Exchanges: Less Choice, Higher Prices,” looked at options available for a 27-year-old single person and a 57-year-old couple in metropolitan areas across 45 states.

The report found that a 27-year-old male had about 10 more policies to choose from on eHealthinsurance.com and finder.healthcare versus the exchange. The older couple had about nine more policy choices.

Ditto for the cost findings, with the 27-year-old male having access to 32 policies that cost less than the cheapest Obamacare offering, and the 57-year-old couple access to 29 cheaper policies.

“In general, consumers had substantially more policies to choose from on private websites such as eHealthinsurance.com and Finder.healthcare.gov than they presently have on the exchanges,” said the study.

“Obamacare supporters, including the president himself and Nancy Pelosi, claimed the exchanges would yield more choice and lower prices,” said the study’s author, David Hogberg. “This study shows those claims do not stand up.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, describes itself f as a “non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

House Subcommittee Chairman: Obama Administration Policy Would Eliminate Half Of All Existing Medicare Part D Plans – Daily Caller

The Obama administration’s new proposed rule for Medicare Part D would eliminate half of all Medicare Part D plans and raise prescription drug premiums for millions of seniors by up to 20 percent, according to a U.S. House subcommittee chairman.

“Today, the average senior has 35 different [Medicare Part D] plans to choose from this year. This rule would reduce that choice to two plans. 50% of the plans offered today will be gone, and the health care that seniors like may go with it,” House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee chairman Rep. Joe Pitts said in a statement at a Feb. 26 hearing attended by a top administration health official.

“Limiting seniors’ choices like this will inevitably lead to higher costs. By some estimates, the restriction on the number of plans that can be offered could cause premiums to rise by 10%-20%. Costs to the federal government may increase by $1.2-1.6 billion according to a study by Milliman,” Pitts said. “… I urge Secretary Sebelius and Administrator Tavenner to rescind this rule.”

The study Pitts cited also showed that the new rule would increase out-of-pocket drug costs for 6.9 million seniors who do not qualify for low-income subsidies, and would raise federal taxpayer costs for six million seniors who do qualify.

President Bush signed Medicare Part D into law in 2003 to subsidize prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

The Daily Caller reported that the administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a division of Kathleen Sebelius’ Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recently introduced a new proposed rule on the Federal Register called “Medicare Program: Contract Year 2015 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs.”

The new rule “would revise the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C) regulations and prescription drug benefit program (Part D) regulations to implement statutory requirements; strengthen beneficiary protections; exclude plans that perform poorly; improve program efficiencies; and clarify program requirements,” according to the Federal Register.

The rule states that it also aims “to implement certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act.”

The new rule’s stated desire to “strengthen our ability to identify strong applicants for Part C and Part D program participation and remove consistently poor performers” would give the Obama administration new authority to limit health insurance and prescription drug providers under the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D programs.

The rule would also violate the Medicare Part D’s law’s “non-interference provision that prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from interfering with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and sponsors of prescription drug plans,” according to testimony by American Action Forum president Douglas Holtz-Eakin, violating “congressional intent.”

Rep. Pitts expressed confusion and anger at CMS’ new rule.

“CMS itself says that 96% of the Part D claims it reviewed showed seniors saved money at preferred pharmacies, and nearly 25,500 seniors in my district have chosen Part D plans with a preferred pharmacy network. Yet CMS would take that away from them,” Pitts said.

“The Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit is a government success story. Last year, nearly 39 million beneficiaries were enrolled in a Part D prescription drug plan,” Pitts said.

“Competition and choice have kept premiums stable. In fact, in 2006, the first year the program was in effect, the base beneficiary premium was $32.20 a month. In 2014, the base beneficiary premium is $32.42 – a 22-cent increase over 9 years – and still roughly half of what was originally predicted,” Pitts added. “More than 90% of seniors are satisfied with their Part D drug coverage because of this. African-American and Hispanic seniors report even higher levels of satisfaction, at 95% and 94%, respectively.”

“The program has worked so well because it forces prescription drug plans and providers to compete for Medicare beneficiaries – putting seniors, not Washington, in the driver’s seat. Part D should be the model for future reforms to the Medicare program,” Pitts said.

House Energy and Commerce committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton joined with Pitts at the hearing in criticizing the new rule.

“The proposed rule, issued on January 6, 2014, appears to be a direct assault on the competitive structure of the program. It inhibits the ability of plans to obtain discounts for beneficiaries, limits the range of market segments in which they may compete, and usurps the responsibility of states to license those able to prescribe. This 700-page proposal makes numerous changes,” Upton said.

CMS principal deputy administrator Jonathan Blum testified that limiting Part D sponsors to providing only two plans per region will “promote needed clarity of plan choices for beneficiaries.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Dreaded and feared Fiscal cliff avoided?

Not doing too much blogging today, I am exhausted, but, I did see this at The Other McCain, where Stacy notes Obama and his fans are happy about higher taxes on the evil rich

Ace has examined the reported terms of the deal, which would raise taxes on those earning more than $400,000, if indeed it is a deal, but deal or no deal, President Obama refused to be distracted from his most important second-term priority, scapegoating Republicans:

Barack Obama held a last-minute press conference today to bash Republicans and gloat about his election victory. At one point in his speech he bragged about how he’s going to be able to raise taxes on wealthy Americans.
His supporters cheered — as if they earned it.

Of course those tax hikes will do nothing at all to address the deficit, but, Democrats love to play that class warfare game so there you are. The Democratic leadership gets to tell the suckers ah, Democratic base that they are making those rich bastards pay their “fair share” and the sheep, ah Democratic base love to see the rich punished. Amazingly the walking brain donors, ah Democratic base are convinced that other people making less money benefits them somehow. 

Here are more details on the proposed deal

Under the proposed accord being hammered out by Biden and McConnell, households earning less than $450,000 would largely escape higher income tax bills, though couples earning more than $300,000 a year and individuals earning more than $250,000 would lose part of the value of their exemptions and itemized deductions, under the terms of the emerging agreement.

Low-income households would also benefit from a five-year extension of credits for college tuition and the working poor first enacted as part of Obama’s stimulus package in 2009. And businesses would see a variety of popular tax breaks extended, including a credit for research and development.

The tax on inherited estates would rise from 35 percent to 40 percent, though Democrats agreed to keep in place the current exemption for estates worth up to $5 million. And nearly 30 million households would be protected from paying the costly alternative minimum tax for the first time — either on their 2012 tax returns or at any time in the future. The developing agreement calls for a permanent fix.

The two sides also appeared to have reached consensus on unemployment benefits, with Republicans acceding to Democratic demands to keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed for another year. Medicare payments would not be cut for doctors next year, and the cost of preserving those programs would not be offset with other spending cuts.

Especially galling to me is the Death Tax, or tax on inherited estates. Why should an heir pay 40% of property ALREADY taxed? This is yet another reason we need ONE, as in JUST one tax rate, for ALL income, period!

 

Fiscal Cliff update! Speaker Beohner offers up tax hikes on millionaires

Point one. Boehner ought to know better, Obama is seeking to use this issue to cripple the GOP. 

Point two. This added revenue will do nothing to reign in the deficit, because it does nothing to reign in the real  problem SPENDING!

Point three. No matter what Boehner and the party do, the Democrats and media will still blame them for everything.

Point four. Once you abandon your principles the game is over.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Signaling new movement in “fiscal cliff” talks, House Speaker John Boehner has proposed raising the top rate for earners making more than $1 million, a person familiar with the negotiations said. President Barack Obama, who wants higher top rates for households earning more than $250,000, has not accepted the offer, this person said.

The proposal, however, indicated progress in talks that had appeared stalled. The person would only discuss the plan on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

As part of a broader budget deal, Boehner is still seeking more spending cuts than Obama has proposed, particularly in mandatory health care spending. Boehner has asked for a long-term increase in eligibility age for Medicare and for lower costs-of-living adjustments for Social Security.

Point five. Who wants to bet that those spending cuts never happen? Who wants to bet the Democrats are calling for more spending by next Summer?

 

Obamacare is already strangling small medical practices

The creeping illness of Socialism is beginning to take effect, and, as always, it is the  people, and small businesses that get it hardest, and first! The Lonely Conservative has more

Obamacare hasn’t yet been fully implemented but it’s already driving up the cost of health care and killing small medical practices. At the same time, it’s helping big hospitals become even bigger.

Thomas Lewandowski, a Wisconsin heart doctor, was faced with a dilemma after his Medicare payments were cut and his overhead costs soared: Fire half his staff to keep his practice open, or sell it to a local hospital.

He decided to sell, becoming one of more than 6,000 employees at Thedacare, which runs five hospitals and numerous clinics in northeast Wisconsin. It’s a decision being made increasingly in the U.S., creating a new dynamic that threatens to raise the price of health care, even as the federal government and states strain to keep a lid on costs.

Under Medicare’s tangled payment system, hospitals get higher reimbursements than individual doctors for cardiology treatment, as they do for other specialty services, in some cases as much as three times more. At the same time, the added bargaining power gained by controlling more of the heart care in a geographic market has given large hospital systems added leverage in negotiating reimbursements from insurers, such as UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH) and WellPoint Inc. (WLP)

One cardiologist said the people who concocted these payments schemes need to have their heads examined. He also said his previous plan to work well into his retirement years has been scrapped.

For cardiologists, the move to hospitals has good and bad aspects, according to Lewandowski, the Wisconsin heart doctor who sold his practice in 2010. While they may gain more stable incomes, doctors often have less freedom over how they care for their patients under strict hospital protocols. Some doctors are also under pressure to see more patients each day when they are employed by a hospital, he said.

“I miss being in private practice and being my own boss,” said Alexander, the Illinois cardiologist. “I would have said 30 years ago that I planned on dying with my boots on, and practicing until I couldn’t practice anymore.

‘‘Now, do I look forward to retirement?’’ he asked. ‘‘Yes. Do I plan on working forever? No.’’

Go read it all. As I noted, it is the very people Socialists claim to be helping that are crushed first. The small businesses go under the wheels too of course. The LOnely Conservative links Timothy Carney, who explains how this works

This is standard. Dodd-Frank looks like it is making big banks bigger. Toy-safety regulation has accrued to the benefit of the big toymakers while killing Mom n Pop competitors. Wal-Mart’s support for theemployer mandate in health insurance and a higher minimum wage weren’t philanthropy. There’s a reason Philip Morris supported FDA regulation of tobacco and smaller cigarette companies called it the “Marlboro Monopoly Act.”

Again, here we go, down the road that Socialism paves. The Road that leads to broken promises, human suffering, and greatly diminished liberty, and choice? Soon that will be gone too. Unless you call being herded into one massive hospital, or another massive hospital. And, of course, the poor will be hardest hit there too, once the IRS starts enforcing that mandate that we MUST buy health care. So, they will be the first to be herded won’t they? And, as more and more of us join them, the system will go broke, and then what?

Comedy Gold! AARP Advertises Medicare Supplement Insurance Chris Matthews says seniors cannot get on Chris Matthews Show

Ah, yes! The Daley Douchebag Award is not given out that often here, but Crazy Legs Matthews just earned himself one

English: Chris Matthews at the 2010 Time 100.

So, wait, I get a Daley Douchebag Award?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

…a day after MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews said for the umpteenth time that no one will sell senior citizens health insurance, AARP ran ad on his show promoting – wait for it! – Medicare Supplement Insurance

As NewsBusters reported Thursday, Matthews is regularly making the completely false claim that no one will sell health insurance to seniors.

Quite the contrary, Medicare Supplement Insurance – or what is also referred to as Medigap Insurance – is a booming business in America with currently almost 10 million policy holders.

As such, Matthews is either ignorant of this incontrovertible fact, or is lying to his viewers.

Matthews defines Raving Moonbat doesn’t he? He knows he lies about this issue, Hell, he lies about most everything on his show

Pelosi on ramming health care down our throats, we had to, those darned Republicans were being mean or something

This piece from The Daily Caller sums up Nancy Pelosi, and the Democratic Party perfectly

Pelosi defended her 2010 passage of health care reform, stating that the Democratic caucus was very diverse and blamed the Republicans for making it impossible for her to pass the legislation without steamrolling it through Congress. She went on to make the case that Obama and the Democrats have to win or health care reform and Medicare “as we know it” are in jeopardy.

Ah, so the Democratic caucus was “diverse” because every member wanted to force the bill through against the will of their constituents, but those Republicans, who were actually doing their jobs by listening to their constituents? They were the problem. Spoken like a true elitist with no respect for the Constitution, or the will of the people. Which, of course is EXACTLY what Pelosi, and her party is!

Great News! New Medicare Rules will make you feel all warm and fuzzy………..

 

Bad News! These rules will also kill old folks. But don’t take that from me, ask a doctor, like Milton Wolf

This is the vicious cycle of big government: Institute top-down, central planning to solve problems, real or imagined. Blame its failures on the greed of others. Institute more top-down, central planning to address those problems, real or imagined. Repeat.

Here’s the government’s latest assault on patients: Medicare fines over hospitals’ readmitted patients.

As of Monday, Medicare will start fining hospitals that have too many patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge due to complications. The penalties are part of a broader push under President Barack Obama’s health care law to improve quality while also trying to save taxpayers money.

Sounds great. What could possibly go wrong?

As one central planner put it:

If General Motors and Toyota issue warranties for their vehicles, hospitals should have some similar obligation when a patient gets a new knee or a stent to relieve a blocked artery, Santa contends. “People go to the hospital to get their problem solved, not to have to come back,” he said.

Weak analogy. Would you hold GM or Toyota responsible if someone drove their new car off the lot and then crashed it because they were driving recklessly? Oh, but patients always follow their doctors’ advice, you say? Uh huh.

But setting aside the obvious structural flaw of this plan that punishes hospitals for outcomes that are beyond their control, consider the incentives it creates. The government is now incentivizing hospitals to deny care. 

No two patients are the same. Some are just sicker than others. Some will need more hospitalizations no matter how excellent their care is. Under this new plan, hospitals are incentivized to avoid the sickest patients because they’ll have a higher likelihood of bouncing back and triggering the fines. You better hope your mom isn’t one of them. 

And if your mom does get sick again after a recent hospitalization, the government has just created a powerful incentive for the hospital to deny her readmission. Good luck with that.

Scary stuff to ponder, both my parents are on Medicare, the last thing they need, or that I need for that matter, is to have that extra worry when they get sick. More at Forbes

The Obama administration’s latest target for health care cost control is Medicare hospital re-admissions. Nearly 20% of Medicare patients discharged from a hospital require re-hospitalization within 30 days, costing the government $17 billion per year. The federal government regards many of these re-admissions as “avoidable” wasteful spending. Under ObamaCare, the government has begun imposing financial penalties on hospitals deemed to be readmitting too many Medicare patients within 30 days for pneumonia, heart failure, or myocardial infarct (heart attack). The presumption is that the hospitals didn’t provide proper care initially or didn’t assure appropriate post-hospital care.

Last month, the federal government announced the first round of penalties. To many experts’ surprise, the list included some of the nation’s top hospitals including Massachusetts General Hospital (ranked #1 in the latest US News report), Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, and University of Michigan Hospital. Over 2200 hospitals across the country were penalized.

In response, hospitals will undoubtedly seek to improve any truly substandard patient care. But many hospitals may also be tempted to game the system to improve their readmission statistics.

There’s already worrisome precedent for such gaming. A recent article in Health Affairs reported a sharp rise in hospitals transferring sick ER patients to short-term “observation” beds (for up to 72 hours sometimes), which don’t count as true hospital admissions. This rise coincided with Medicare payment rules aimed at reducing hospital admissions. Hospital admissions fell, but patients received lower levels of care and likely incurred greater out-of-pocket expenses.

The ObamaCare rules will also pressure doctors to delay re-admissions. Dr. Shabbir Hossain described caring for a woman as an outpatient whose congestive heart failure recurred shortly after hospital discharge. Despite his best efforts, her condition deteriorated daily. He admitted breathing “a sigh of relief” when he got her safely past the 30-day “clock,” which meant the local hospital would be more willing to re-admit her.

Much more at the link, and it will scare you. Odd, Liberals have often decried the role that cost plays in health care, they loathe “greedy” insurance companies that consider cost, yet, ObamaCare has made that worse than ever, and in universal health care, which many Libs long for, there IS no option other than government care. I guess it is OK with the Left if the government pulls the plug on you to save money.

 

If you make only one video go viral this year……

 

………make it this one from Stacy McCain

Betsy McCaughey is the former lieutenant governor of New York. She has a Ph.D. from Columbia University. Her Web site isDefendYourHealthCare.com and she is the author of The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It.

Today at Newt Gingrich’s “Newt University” conference, Dr. McCaughey explained that the “skimpy care” that Obama’s health law would impose on Medicare hospital patients “is likely to cause an estimated 40,000 unnecessary deaths each year.” As she explained in a brief video interview with me today, this is not a political charge, but is based on evidence from extensive medical research. Here’s the video — let’s make it viral:y

And as you pass this around, remember WHO passed this law, AGAINST our wishes!

 

Boy, the Dems must have crossed CNN at some point

 

Because, as this clip via Donald Douglas shows Anderson Cooper hammering Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Wow! Good for Anderson! This is what we need, for the media to do their job. All Cooper is doing is trying to report something accurately, and Wasserman Schultz just keeps parroting the lie. Frankly, i am amazed that anyone would support her or her party. And do not forget that Wolf Blitzer also raked this hag over the Coals of Truth over Ryan’s Medicare plan

I have no idea what has gotten into CNN, but it should be noted and applauded. Here is another example

And this, where Blitzer hammers the despicable Bill Burton

 

Is there room under the Magic Obama Bus for Crazy Uncle Joe?

 

Stacy McCain seems to believe that Biden will be out as VP soon, and gives some pretty good reasons why. 

Obama is about winning. Everything after the tactical consideration, even the long-term security of the country, is something “We’ll get to.” Biden is a liability to the campaign of a daily increasing magnitude. A reporter is going to bring up the Medicare question, for example, and Biden is going to blame state-level mismanagement.

Biden, don’t you know, is ‘experiencing early-onset Alzheimers’, or something. The narrative will shift to what a swell, compassionate guy Obama has been to keep Uncle Choo-Choo ’round these years. Alas, Obama, as a servant of the American people, cannot avoid the hard decisions. Obama has to put his deep affection for Biden aside, and accept Joe’s inability to support the ticket again this fall. With much weeping. Make sure the light hits them alligator tears.

Biden’s gaffes will be reported with increasing frequency and faux emotion between now and the DNC in Charlotte, starting on 03 September. Joe’s ‘illness’ (I’m not a doctor, he may have a no-kidding problem) will be a great, big, fat, emotional freebie. Joe becomes the human sacrifice, savaged by the plans of the evil Republicans. Barack is the savior of the AARP, fighting off that young wolf Ryan, who’s going to fix everything until thoroughly destroyed, don’t you know? Sorry that Ryan was able to take out Uncle Choo-Choo. Or did Biden bravely lay down his political life for the cause? A little martyrdom ain’t so bad, as long as it doesn’t thug any halo from Obama.

If Joe goes who will step in? Is there a rock star out there the Dems can tab as VP? I cannot think of any right off hand. All the young, exciting politicians are Republicans now. West, Rubio, Haley, Christie, Jindal etc. Funny, it seems that the Democrats have become the Uncool Party. Full of retreads, and used-to-bes who never really were in the first place.

 

Best sign for a Romney/Ryan victory? The GOP “pros” whoever they are are pissy about Ryan pick

The Lonely Conservative has the details, and thinks, as I do, that this is very positive news.

The top story on memeorandum today is Politico’s piece citing all sorts of unnamed Republican “pros” who are fretting about Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan to be his running mate. What do they think, that the Democrats wouldn’t come out and attack and demonize whoever Romney chose? If so, they have no business being in the business of politics.

And the more pessimistic strategists don’t even feign good cheer: They think the Ryan pick is a disaster for the GOP. Many of these people don’t care that much about Romney — they always felt he faced an improbable path to victory — but are worried that Ryan’s vocal views about overhauling Medicare will be a millstone for other GOP candidates in critical House and Senate races.

Let’s get to the caveats: No one is asserting that Washington operatives in either party are oracles or seers. What’s more, it is not as if there is anything like unanimity in GOP circles about the merits of the Ryan pick, though the mood of anxiety and skepticism is overwhelming.

Most of all, if you are one of those people who thinks if someone has something negative to say, they should have the guts to put their name on it, you won’t find much to impress you in this article. Nearly all the Republican professionals interviewed for this story said they would share their unfiltered views only “on background” rules of attribution. (Read More)

Hmm. I wonder if they are some of the same pros who told us that John McCain was the man to run against Hillary Clinton in 2008. How’d that work out for us?

Then again, it could be plain old fashioned sour grapes.

It would be interesting to know how many of these pros didn’t get hired by Romney or their paymasters weren’t chosen or even considered for VP by him.

And then, the GOP “pros” said we cannot win

Go read the rest folks. These “pros” are often wrong, and often are afraid of the GOP nominating a candidate that is too Conservative. They are sort of like that football coach that ALWAYS punts on 4th and short, ALWAYS plays it safe, and usually loses.

What has gotten into Wolf Blitzer lately?

 

He is not letting Dems like Debbie Wasserman Schultz spin their lies unchallenged, Donald Douglas has video of Wolf REPEATEDLY correcting her lies about Paul Ryan and Medicare! I almost expected she would start having a tantrum, she certainly is not used to the press hammering her.

 

A stark reminder that a government big enough to give you everything………………

I think you likely know the rest right? Well, The Lonely Conservative has a reminder for us

I was perusing Capitalism Magazine and came across an article written by Richard Ralston and posted about a week ago. He explains how the FDA is not allowing a stem cell procedure in which one’s own cells taken from one part of the body are used to repair cells in the other part. I remember when the left was up in arms because George Bush put a freeze on federal funding for the use of embryonic stem cells, so I’m wondering where the outrage is over this? There aren’t any ethical problems with the using one’s own stem cells, so what’s the problem.

From the article:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has gone to court to prevent the Colorado-based firm Regenerative Sciences from using stem cells developed in one part of your body (bone marrow) to repair damage in other parts of your body, such as joints. The FDA objects to the fact that these cells are chemicals, the use of which they have the power to regulate even though the cells are taken from your body to later be injected back into your body.

The FDA is accustomed to the process by which it requires that many years and millions of dollars be spent to approve drugs developed in a laboratory before anyone is allowed to use them. Regardless of clinical results that show use of stem cells to be highly effective, the FDA finds it intolerable to let you use the cells in your own body without prior approval by a vast and expensive bureaucracy.

It is a shame that no one told all of those who would benefit from stem cell research that the benefits of such research would not actually be available to patients. Treatment of individuals does not comply with the FDA’s regulatory paradigm. Personalized medicine may work new miracles, but care for the individual must be subordinated to supervision by a multitude of administrators.

Growing government involvement in medicine, over generations, has resulted in control for the controller’s sake. The most extreme example of this is the refusal of the FDA, in many cases, to forbid access by terminally ill patients to drugs that have passed the first phase of testing, which establishes safety. (Read More)

Talk about stuck on stoopit! This is the natural result when we lose liberty though isn’t it? Once we cede control to government, all bets are off, and soon, all liberties are lost. For instance, were you aware that if you are on Medicare

In 2010, another hurdle was created with the passage of Obamacare. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)–”independent” because it is appointed by the President–decides whether it will allow payment for any care, including use of your stem cells. If you are on Medicare and your physician accepts Medicare patients, you may not even use your own money for treatment with your own stem cells. No physician in Medicare is allowed to accept payment for anything not covered by Medicare.

Got that? What possible business is it of the government to tell a doctor, what treatments they may provide, or what form of legitimate payment they can accept for that treatment? What does such a stipulation have to do with curbing costs? If you pay out of pocket, Medicare obviously is not paying, so, what possible reason is there? Think on that my friends. Like I, and many others have said over and again. This is all about control!

Team Obama to Supreme Court: You strike down Obamacare and we might have to push grandma off a cliff

The Lonely Conservative links this story where Ben Shapiro lays out what Team Obama is up to, to me, it is more than just playing politics it amounts to intimidation, thuggery, and the Chicago way

The Obama administration warned the Supreme Court this week via papers filed with the Court that if Obamacare is struck down, there will be an “extraordinary disruption” in Medicare. Medicare was not discussed during the Supreme Court arguments, since it was not a Constitutional issue. This is a practical argument, not a legal one; it’s the Obama administration applying pressure to the Supremes.

But that’s what the Obama administration does – they focus on the politics of the situation rather than on the legalities. If they can’t win on the law, they figure, they’ll push the Court to act via “empathy,” President Obama’s favorite legal standard. And if they lose, they’ll blame the Court for destroying Medicare.

And they will blame those dastardly Republicans too. Sure, part of this is politics as usual, you know, the type of thing Obama vowed to end back in 2008. But part of it is an attempt to intimidate the justices too. And that is deplorable.

As a side note here, if what the Obama administration says is true, then who should get the blame? Not the Republicans, who opposed this bastard of a bill all the way. Not the Tea Party, and not the Supreme Court either. No, the blame would lie at the feet of the Democrats who shoved this through. They knew this would end up in the Supreme Court. They had to know it stood a really good chance of being voided there. So, if they passed a bill that would end in this type of “extraordinary disruption” in  Medicare, then the blame is theirs and theirs alone!

Let us hope that Team Romney is smart enough to make that case to the people!

Yep, even without the mandate, Obamacare still sucks

Do0n’t believe me? Ask a doctor, Milton Wolf

It’s Not Just the Mandate: ObamaCare’s Other Infringements
The bill seizes liberty from doctors and insurance firms, too.

•Doctors must purchase and use expensive electronic medical record systems.

•Doctors must electronically record certain patient data such as ethnicity, BMI (body mass index), blood pressure, and smoking status — and turn over patient data to the government upon request.

•Doctors treating Medicare patients must practice according to government “quality” guidelines or face economic penalties.

•Insurance companies must offer numerous “free” benefits, including various preventive health services, birth control, and coverage of “children” up to age 26.

•Insurers may not raise their rates to cover these new expenses unless the government agrees those rate increases are “reasonable.”

•An Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) of unelected bureaucrats will set prices for Medicare services that will lead to de facto rationing.

Read it all and check out Dr. Hsieh’s blog We Stand FIRM.

This bill is a disaster for America. This nation might need some work on our medical insurance situation, but this bill does nothing to help those needs.

The newest RAAAAACIST word?

Well, according to some pinhead on MSNBS, where else, the year 1965 is now RAAAAACIST!!

Via Newsbusters:

No, not at all. When Rick Santorum first announced he was running for President, in his announcement speech, he was criticizing President Obama for saying America wasn’t as great as it was until there were programs like Medicare and Social Security. But in that criticism, he said directly to the President, he said, “Mr. President, America was great before 1965.”

I called that out as a coded message. You know, I go to Selma every year, and 1965 is a sacred year in the history of this country, and a never-forgotten year in terms of the history of Alabama. When he said that, I knew exactly who he was speaking to in that coded language. So I’m not surprised at all that he won Alabama.

What can I say? These Liberal race pimps are always hearing “code words”. Good Grief! This calls for the ultimate face palm!

 

Whose economic plan does The Club For Growth like best?

Video from Cavuto, check out whose plan is rated the best, give you one guess

Here are some of the key comments from the video

Rick Perry I think has one of the best if not the best plans. He’s got a ‘Cut, Balance and Grow’ plan where he wants to institute a Balanced Budget Amendment and cap spending at 18 percent, and then he wants to cut taxes all over the place that would just really be a pro-growth boon. It’d be eliminating capital gains, lowering corporate tax rates and personal tax rates down to 20 percent. Very, very strong plan.”

Mr. Roth was also critical of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney’s economic records and plans:

“With Santorum… if you looked at his record when he was in the Senate, he was a prolific earmarker , he supported adding trillions to Medicare, so it’s just not believable.”

OUCH, that has to hurt a certain blogger named Stacy who, for some reason thinks Santorum hung the moon

“Newt Gingrich is kind of in the Santorum camp… his track record is just very, very weak. You know, he supported Medicare Part D, which expanded entitlements in a huge way, he supported cap and trade with Hillary Clinton, the list goes on and on…”

Personally, I think this might be a tad harsh on Newt, he accomplished a lot as Speaker

“Mitt Romney…  actually deserves to be in last place on this because it’s very uninspired ideas that he has. He barely wants to tinker around with the tax code and he wants to lower spending to 20 percent of GDP from its current 24 percent. ”

Romney…uninspiring? YEP!

Medicare Has Spent A Quarter Of A Billion Tax Dollars On Penis Pumps

Medicare Has Spent A Quarter Of A Billion Tax Dollars On Penis Pumps – Heartlander

According to data collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare has spent more than $240 million of taxpayer money on penis pumps for elderly men over the past decade, and will surpass a quarter of a billion dollars this year for costs since 2001.

………………………………….

The cost to taxpayers for the pumps more than quadrupled during that period, from a low of $11 million in 2001 to a high of more than $47 million in 2010. And these represent only the costs for external devices, technically classified as “Male Vacuum Erection Systems,” not implantable devices or oral drugs such as Viagra.

In order to obtain a pump, according to CMS’s Local Coverage Determination (LCD) revised in October this year, the “patient’s medical record must contain sufficient documentation of the patient’s medical condition to substantiate the necessity for the type and quantity of items ordered,” noting erectile dysfunction (ED) can “commonly occur in men in the Medicare age group.”

The National Institutes of Health previously estimated between 15 percent and 25 percent of 65-year-old men experience ED on a long-term basis, which the LCD notes may be caused by “diabetes, other endocrine abnormalities, vascular abnormalities, trauma, neurogenic, psychogenic, side effects of many medications, and other causes.” The Cleveland Clinic also points to “psychological factors, such as stress, depression, and performance anxiety” as possible causes.

If a medical exam and history shows a senior on Medicare meets the relevant threshold – a diagnosis of ED – he becomes eligible for a wide range of options under the Medicare Prosthetic benefit. Treatment Options covered by Medicare include “oral medications, pharmacological injections, intra-urethral suppositories, vacuum erection devices, and implantable penile pumps.”

But are these devices really “medically necessary”? Health Care News contacted CMS to ask whether they have audited the medical files to determine medical necessity. CMS has not provided a response at the time of publication.

One area of concern for CMS is the rise in fraud in relation to the pump devices. Earlier this year an Illinois man pled guilty to collecting more than $2 million from Medicare in a fraudulent operation where he repackaged $26 items from adult websites and sold them to seniors as medical devices, charging Medicare $284 apiece.

Device fraud has become an increasingly common way for criminals bilk the taxpayers. Durable medical equipment (DME) is widely perceived as a “high risk” area for fraud, according to a spokesman for the HHS Office of the Inspector General. And a report released last month by CMS found the error and improper payment rate for DME was above 60 percent, whereas no other area even entered double digits.

Given the questionable medical need for this technology’s utilization and the significant percentage of improper DME payments, John Nothdurft, director of government relations for The Heartland Institute, questions whether it is prudent for Medicare to continue to pay for penis pumps.

“At a time when the federal government borrows 43 cents of every dollar it spends, do we really need to be spending money on this? I doubt you need a ‘Super Committee’ to realize that this is the epitome of wasteful spending,” Nothdurft said.

In prior reports of Medicare’s trustees, the program’s actuary projected Medicare has $36.8 trillion in unfunded liabilities. And according to their 2011 report, Medicare spending is expected to grow from 3.6 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010 to roughly 10.7 percent of GDP in 2085.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Yes, Virginia, ObamaCare will lead to rationing

The Left can bury their heads in the sand as deep as they want to. The fact is this, ObamaCare will eventually lead to, well………..

When pro-life advocates list their reasons for opposing abortion-on-demand, they often cite their conviction that it is merely the first step toward even more grisly social engineering projects, including euthanasia for the old and infirm. This invariably produces sneers from soi-disant progressives, who smugly characterize these fears as hysterical nonsense. But such concerns will seem eminently reasonable to any open-minded reader who peruses the writings of Henry J. Aaron, the President’s nominee for Chair of the Social Security Advisory Board. Like Obama’s recess-appointed Medicare czar, Aaron is an unapologetic admirer of Great Britain’s notorious socialized medical system, the National Health Service (NHS). Why? Because NHS administrators unabashedly practice the dark art of health care rationing.

Aaron, a Senior Fellow in Economics at the Brookings Institution, is unable to imagine any route to cost control that doesn’t involve government coercion. In a 2005 Brookings white paper titled “Health Care Rationing: What it Means,” he represents the NHS as a system that has come to grips with what he sees as the inescapable necessity for rationing. Predictably, he rejects any alternative involving the market: “The key to efficient market outcomes is that prices reflect costs of production. The market for health care does not operate that way.” In other words, Aaron believes health care is a unique universe in which the market mysteriously fails to function and therefore can’t be relied upon to contain costs. It never seems to have occurred to him that the market’s alleged failure might be the result of government meddling.

Go read it all, it gets worse.

I must not view debates like others do

I am all about substance, and not style where politics and campaigns are concerned. Not that I necessarily mind style, it has its place, but that place matters far less to me than do ideology and substance.

In the GOP debates this year, the “consensus” has been that Romney has looked, presidential, and well-informed. To me he has looked robotic, and rehearsed, and less than sincere many times.

Herman Cain, to me, has done well enough, but, frankly, if I hear him say “bold plan” or “9-9-9″ once more I will throw something at my TV, frankly, that makes him sound like  used car salesman, not the sincere Conservative he is.

Now, consider Rick Perry, who has had some less than perfect moments in the debates. Yes, but, I have to say, on things that matter, I mean really matter, and sorry, but a brain fart, which all of us have had, likely more than once, does not amount to anything of any import. Frankly, if you are saying Perry is not qualified to be president because of that gaffe, or that his campaign is now doomed, then I would say that you are the one having the mental meltdown, not Perry. And by the way, I would say the very same about any of the candidates who had  a brain fart.

Consider something else about “gaffes” if anyone has gaffed their way out of the race, it is Herman Cain. Don’t think so? How about the Medicare question in his debate with Newt? His going back and forth about abortion? How about the right of return debacle? His contradicting himself on whether States could restrict gun rights? His seeming not to be aware that China has nukes? And of course, the question of whether or not he would negotiate with terrorists? Good grief! Yet, for the most part, Cain seems to be made of Teflon on these. Perry? He gets the big time scrutiny. This makes no sense to me.

So, here it is folks. If you do not support Perry, fine, but at least do it because of differences on issues. Not how he performs in a debate format that is designed, in my view to, select not the best candidate but the best “debater”.

Go listen to some of Perry’s speeches, look at his ideals, his record, his tax and energy plans, and his position on core Conservative values, and then decide. But for goodness sake, do not judge him, or ANY of our candidates on debates, or style points, this election is way to important for that!