Medicare Rationer Won’t Disclose Who Paid the Bills
Jim McElhatton, Washington Times
Before he took over the nation’s Medicare and Medicaid agency this summer, Dr. Donald Berwick retired from the nonprofit health care think tank he co-founded with a nearly $900,000 compensation package and a seven-figure executive retirement plan.
But Dr. Berwick is declining to say exactly who provided funding to the Massachusetts-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement in response to Republicans who question whether the new Medicare chief could have a conflict of interest if medical-device companies or health plans helped make his generous compensation package possible in the first place.
Last week, Dr. Berwick, who is administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), declined to release information about donors to the nonprofit group where he served as chief executive, saying he no longer worked there and had no authority to release information that was not public.
In a letter to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Dr. Berwick said he has complied fully with the ethics rules.
“You can be assured that I will comply with all of the recusal and other obligations contained in my ethics agreement,” Dr. Berwick wrote.
The Washington Times reported earlier this month that a review of some of the funding sources of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement show health care entities that don’t appear on Dr. Berwick‘s financial disclosure or on the standard ethics agreement that officials use to root out potential conflicts of interest.
Big Labor’s Secret Role in ObamaCare
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained new documents from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding closed-door health care meetings with Vice President Joe Biden, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Obamacare Czar Nancy-Ann Min DeParle and union officials. The following are highlights from the documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on March 17, 2010:
- An agenda for a January 13 meeting between union leaders and White House staff, including Vice President Biden. Importantly, this agenda (which focused on labor concerns) was redacted in the original batch of documents released to Judicial Watch and was sent later under separate cover. The document shows that the meeting was paused so that Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, could go up to Capitol Hill to meet with “progressive” House members.
- A copy of Kathleen Sebelius’ schedule for the weeks of January 11-17, 2010, and January 4-10, 2010. Among other things, the schedule shows the attendees of several White House meetings that Sebelius attended, with a January 15 meeting specifically designated for a “POTUS MEETING ON HEALTH REFORM.” The meeting was scheduled from 1:30 pm to 4:00 pm in the White House Cabinet Room.
- A list of all of the labor union leaders who attended a meeting with President Obama along with brief biographical information on each participant. The list included: Richard Trumka; Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union; and Jim Hoffa, President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, among other Big Labor leaders.
ObamaCare Already Jacking Up Rates
Kevin “Coach” Collins, Coach Is Right
Elections have consequences. Words really do have meaning. The fools in the Blue States are learning these truths the hard way.
The Hope and Change crowd is getting some change, but not the kind they thought they were getting when they closed their ears and eyes and voted for a charlatan they knew nothing about.
The costs of ObamaCare, that many of us warned about, are already being felt in several states that voted for Barack Obama and the best part is the first victims out of the shoot are the unionized public employees.
In Iowa state employees using Blue Cross/Blue Shield are paying up to 11.2 percent more in premiums for the same or less health care thanks to the provisions of ObamaCare. The State of Iowa will pay an additional $17 million to cover its employee’s medical insurance as well.
In Washington State, another Obama stronghold, unionized State employees will have to ante up increased healthcare insurance premiums. Starting January 1st some will be paying 50 percent more for what they had before ObamaCare.
Obama’s Still Trying to Pry Into Your Medical Records
Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports
One of the side effects of socialized medicine is that the government must have access to the history and prognosis of all its patients. This Big Brother boon is coming to America.
The New York Times reported over the weekend that the Obama administration is “rewriting” its rules governing who can look into medical records – and whether you are allowed to find out about it. Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s HHS secretary, drafted temporary rules last August, then unveiled “permanent” rules just last month, but they were so loose many on the Left could not agree to them. Under current rules, “No notification is required” if someone steals, tampers with, or otherwise accesses a patient’s medical records unless the hospital judges it would pose “a significant risk of financial, reputational, or other harm to the individual.”
Breaches of privacy are all-too-prevalent. The Times noted the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse “estimates that more than five million people have been affected by breaches of medical information in the last 18 months.” The Institute of Medicine documented tens of thousands of breaches in 2007-8. These include the loss of Social Security number, the crown jewel of identity theft.
The actions of the Obama administration will further compromise patients’ privacy while laying heavier burdens upon health care providers
Obama managed to sneak a provision into the 2009 stimulus bill to make medical records more readily transferable. Section 3001 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 sets aside $19.2 billion to digitize records, turning the traditional, overstuffed folders of papers into Electronic Medical Records (EMRs). Federal law authorized the “development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information.”
The records are to include, “at a minimum, diagnostic test results, problem list, medication list, medication allergy list, and procedures.” The EMRs should also list each patient’s “problem list,” consisting of such things as “(i) Diseases. (ii) Injuries. (iii) Impairments. (iv) Other health problems and their manifestations. (v) Causes of injury, disease, impairment, or other health problems.” CNSNews.com asked Dr. David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, what if any information would not be stored for all to see. His answer seemed less than forthcoming.
(Story continues below video.)
A side effect is electronic health records open patients to far great threat of hackers. But a vast array of organizations already have access to patients’ “private” medical information.
The greater fear is the officials of ObamaCare will use this information to deny care to those they deem too weak or unworthy to live. Those fears were verified by Dr. Donald Berwick‘s presence at the press conference announcing new “permanent” regulations last month. In any socialized medicine scheme, the State must pour over its subjects’ records to prioritize them for care – or to deny them care. As Clinton’s Labor Secretary Robert Reich put it, a government bureaucrat will gently whisper into an ailing grandmother’s ear, “We’re going to let you die.”
EMRs create the virtual infrastructure necessary for death panels. Perhaps that is why Obama is willing to pay for them. The stimulus funds offer doctors and hospitals incentive pay to digitize records, and threaten to reduce Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to those not using digital records by 2014, reducing payments by one percent a year beginning in 2015.
Federal tax dollars will defray the enormous cost of purchasing the equipment necessary for EMRs. Such systems run doctors an estimated $50,000, and hospitals can pay $50 to $100 million. However, The Washington Post reports the government will award a maximum of only $11 million per hospital.
This unfunded mandate will drive already skyrocketing medical costs even higher. The Miami Herald reported that Miami Hospital is paying $100 million. The paper quotes Dr. Tony Prieto, a local family practitioner who works alone, that the federal reimbursement “won’t even be close” to his expenses. It added even a local hospital facing “financial woes is upgrading its…system as part of the federal push.”
How increasing medical costs is supposed to decrease medical costs is a secret known only to Democrats such as Joe Biden, who believe, “We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt.”
Sadly, losing our money pales in comparison to losing our privacy and, perhaps, our lives.
Congressional Report Lists 36 Pages of Obama’s Crimes
Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports
Congressman Darrell Issa has produced a shocking new report detailing the Obama administration’s extensive use of taxpayer-funded propaganda, which he says breaks federal law. The report created for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform details how the former Alinskyite community organizer has channeled the resources of the federal government — that is, your money — to create “a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign” made up of “inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives.” The highlights include:
- Using federal arts grants to spread Obama’s legislative message. Last August 10, administration officials held a conference call with National Endowment of the Arts grant recipients. Buffy Wicks, a college radical who worked in Valerie Jarrett‘s Office of Public Engagement, told the invitees, “we’re going to come at you with some specific ‘asks’ here,” specifically supporting Obama’s initiatives on health care, the environment, or energy. She suggested, “We wanted folks to connect…with federal agencies, with labor unions, progressive groups, face groups [faith groups, perhaps?], women’s groups, you name it.” Within 48 hours, no fewer than 21 arts organizations released a statement endorsing ObamaCare.
- The Dept. of Health and Human Services paid MIT economist Jonathan Gruber nearly $400,000 for various jobs. He did not disclose his employment by HHS while writing a string of op-eds, nor while testifying before the Senate in favor of, ObamaCare.
- The Justice Dept. hired Tracy Russo, the former blogger for John Edwards, to comment on internet articles or bulletin board messages that criticized Barack Obama and his agenda. She did this anonymously or used a pen name.
- A Dept. of Education officer used the White House email to send his colleagues eight bullet points to “communicate the merits of the President’s proposal with your members and their audiences.”
- The federal government “highly recommended” constructing highway signs that tout big government and advertise politicians (including Obama). (Watch the committee’s video on the subject here.)
- Obama attempted to enlist “voluntary” Hollywood propaganda for his proposals through the iParticipate campaign.
- Andy Griffith starred in a Medicare “update” that doubled as a commercial for Obama’s health care legislation. Not only is the PSAl propaganda, it is erroneous. A writer with the nonpartisan FactCheck.org remarked Griffith’s scripted “promise that ‘benefits will remain the same’ is just as fictional as the town of Mayberry.”
- The White House routinely drove traffic to websites that lobby for Obama’s legislation.
You can read the full report here.
Issa cites three separate federal statutes violated by the Obama administration and has called for a Government Accountability Office (GAO) to launch an investigation. If violations of the law are found, impeachment could follow.
It’s not bad enough the president is a megalomaniac who skirts the law to foist his far-Left agenda on the American people — he also uses your money to do it.
Missouri Voters say No to Obamacare
St Louis Today
Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama’s administration and giving Republicans their first political victory in a national campaign to overturn the controversial health care law passed by Congress in March.
“The citizens of the Show-Me State don’t want Washington involved in their health care decisions," said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.
With most of the vote counted, Proposition C was winning by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. The measure, which seeks to exempt Missouri from the insurance mandate in the new health care law, includes a provision that would change how insurance companies that go out of business in Missouri liquidate their assets.
"I’ve never seen anything like it," Cunningham said at a campaign gathering at a private home in Town and Country. "Citizens wanted their voices to be heard."
Boehner Releases “ObamaCare: Three Months of Broken Promises” Report
Checkup Report Outlines Broken Promises of Dems’ Government Takeover of Health Care & Republicans’ Better Solutions to Lower Costs, Protect Jobs
Washington (Jun 23) House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today marked the three-month anniversary of President Obama’s government takeover of health care by releasing a report outlining its broken promises. Entitled “ObamaCare: Three Months of Broken Promises,” the report measures the law’s across-the-board failure to live up to Washington Democrats’ specific promises, including creating jobs, lowering costs, reducing the deficit, and protecting seniors’ benefits.
The report also examines Republicans’ coordinated offensive to address the rising public backlash against the new law and promote better solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting jobs.
“This report chronicles ObamaCare’s broken promises in the three months since it became law,” Boehner said. “The American people remain squarely opposed to this government takeover of health care that has already failed to live up to specific promises made by President Obama and Washington Democrats. Republicans are listening to the American people, and fighting to repeal ObamaCare so we can replace it with common-sense reforms focused on lowering costs and protecting jobs.”
The 43-page report is comprised of the following sections:
• American Jobs Already Under Attack
• Increasing Americans’ Health Care Costs
• Increasing The Deficit
• Raising Taxes On Middle-Class Families And Small Businesses
• Devastating Cuts In Seniors’ Benefits
• “If You Like Your Health Care Plan, Too Bad”
• No Progress On Stopping Taxpayer-Funded Abortions
• States Revolt Against ObamaCare Mandates
• Taxpayer-Funded, Taxpayer-Rejected PR Campaign
• GOP Offensive Holds Democrats Accountable For Broken Promises
• Better Solutions To Lower Health Care Costs
NOTE: The “ObamaCare: Three Months of Broken Promises” report can be viewed by clicking here.
Video: Obama and the Fly
Obama can’t keep a fly away from him during a news conference about his health care plan.
I wonder why he likes him so much..?
Maybe it has something to do with the BS coming out of his mouth.
JCT: Healthcare law to sock middle class with a $3.9 billion tax increase in 2019
By Jay Heflin, The Hill
Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes — in 2019 alone — due to healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s official scorekeeper.
The new law raises $15.2 billion over 10 years by limiting the medical expense deduction, a provision widely used by taxpayers who either have a serious illness or are older.
Taxpayers can currently deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Starting in 2013, most taxpayers will only be able to deduct expenses greater than 10 percent of AGI. Older taxpayers are hit by this threshold increase in 2017.
Once the law is fully implemented in 2019, the JCT estimates the deduction limitation will affect 14.8 million taxpayers — 14.7 million of them will earn less than $200,000 a year. These taxpayers are single and joint filers, as well as heads of households.
“Loss of this deduction will mean higher taxes for 14.7 million individuals and families making under $200,000 a year in 2019,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told The Hill. “The new subsidy for health insurance would not be available to offset this tax increase for most of these households.”
The Fight Against ObamaCare Continues
With benefits as notorious as Viagra for pedophiles and rapists, we watched in horror as the American way of life was fundamentally changed by Democratic members of the House of Representatives and Senate. Obama and Pelosi twisted arms and bribed members of Congress into supporting their massive new entitlement program. A feeling of defeat and despair began to creep in as ObamaCare became the law. At their huge celebration party at the White House, in words unfitting a vice-president, Joe Biden exuberantly proclaimed, “This is a big F***ing deal.”
Repeal is a laudable goal we should work towards, but the political reality dictates that is highly improbable. Even Ronald Reagan was unable to repeal the Department of Education that he had pledged to abolish. Once a new government entitlement and layers of bureaucracy are created, it is nearly impossible to roll back.
But don’t give up now. While prospects are bleak, there is reason for hope.
The attorneys general of 14 different states have signed onto a lawsuit challenging certain portions of ObamaCare as being unconstitutional. While these lawsuits will not repeal the whole law, they will eliminate the most egregious portions of the bill.
It is comforting to know that at least 14 elected representatives take their oaths of office seriously and are willing to stand up to preserve and defend the Constitution.
The lawsuit asserts a few major breaches of constitutional limitations by the federal government. The first is that under the enumerated powers of the Constitution, the federal government has no authority to require its citizens to purchase a product. Some liberals might claim that the government already requires you to purchase auto insurance. This comparison is faulty for two reasons: first of all, driving a car is a privilege, not a requirement. A citizen may choose not to drive a car and, therefore, not have insurance. The second reason this comparison falls flat is that auto insurance mandates are not passed by the federal government, but by the states. Our Constitution enshrines an oft-maligned principle known as federalism.
The lawsuit states, “The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying healthcare coverage. By imposing such a mandate, the Act exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.”
The second unconstitutional provision of ObamaCare is the tax penalty required under the act. This tax that must be paid by uninsured citizens is a capitation, or a direct tax, which is prohibited by Article 1, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution.
The third reason the act is unconstitutional is that it mandates that states add people to their Medicaid rolls, and forces the states to pay the costs out-of-pocket. Florida estimates they will see a 50 percent increase in Medicaid enrollment. This unfunded mandate is clearly unconstitutional.
The new act changes the dynamic of Medicaid from a state-federal partnership, to a top-down federal program where the discretion of the states is removed.
The only response from Obama’s administration has been from Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform. She said the president isn’t “concerned” about the potential legal challenges. Congress has the “inherent authority” to mandate coverage under the commerce clause that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, she told Bloomberg Television.
While the success of this lawsuit may seem unlikely, this is not the first time an ambitious president has run afoul of the Constitution. The Supreme Court overturned some of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s more radical and unconstitutional schemes during the Great Depression. This led to his attempts to pack the Supreme Court.
Our hope is that the Supreme Court will defend the Constitution. They will hear the joint case from these courageous attorneys general, or one of the cases forthcoming from private citizens, and fulfill the proper role of interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
If the courts will not stand and uphold the Constitution, who will?
