Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
All Da King's Men -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Health Care Hypocrites

by Da King on September 23, 2009

in Democrats,GOP,health care,White House administration

President Bush tried to cut Medicare spending several times to trim the deficits and offset rising health care costs. Each time, he was vilified by the Democrats, and Democrats voted as a bloc against those cuts, defeating them every time. In 2008, they even overrode a Bush veto to stop Bush from implementing Medicare cuts. The various sizes of the proposed Bush Medicare cuts were between $35 billion over five years, $105 billion over ten years, and $278 billion over ten years.

Now, it's all somehow different. President Obama is calling for $622 billion in Medicare/Medicaid cuts over ten years, far more than Bush ever proposed, and the Democrats have suddenly come to the realization that the Medicare entitlements are unsustainable, threatening to bankrupt the nation, and will drive the deficits through the roof. I assume the Democrats came to this realization the same day Barack Obama became President Of The United States. The same Democrats who opposed Bush's Medicare cuts are perfectly fine with Obama's much larger Medicare cuts. While I'm glad the Democrats have finally awakened somewhat to the reality of the entitlement crisis, their hypocrisy is deafening.

Watch this video, and then tell me if PARTISAN POLITICS isn't the reason behind everything in Washington, D.C. Check out the blather coming from Kennedy and Kerry in particular:

Hard to believe, isn't it ?

Not only are the Democrats proposing huge Medicare/Medicaid cuts in their health care reform bills, but they are trying to pretend their Medicare cuts aren't really cuts at all (the 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' defense), and they are trying to silence and threaten those who point out the obvious, that yes, Medicare cuts really are cuts, and will impact patients.

Humana, a large private Medicare Advantage insurer, sent out letters to it's customers, pointing out that Medicare Advantage services will have to be curtailed under the Democratic health reform bills. The noble Obama administration, staunch defenders of the Constitution, leapt into action against Humana, ordering it to cease and desist engaging in all that, um, free speech. Then the government launched an investigation of Humana. Democrats denounced Humana as liars, and when some Republicans pointed out an inconvenient truth, that Humana was right, Democrats went into Pavlovian mode and started demonizing Republicans as handmaidens of the insurance industry. What a creepy and shameless bunch these Dems have become.

Even more inconveniently for the Democrats, the Congressional Budget Office backs up Humana and the Republicans. The CBO says Medicare benefits will be cut. Combined with the previous CBO statements – that Medicare premiums will rise under ObamaCare, that overall health care costs will rise under ObamaCare, that Medicare prescription drug prices will increase by 20% under ObamaCare, and that ObamaCare isn't paid for and will add to the deficit, it appears the Democrats are merely trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

The silver lining to all this is, there really isn't a health care reform bill yet. There are a series of bills (all deeply flawed), so there's still time to change the wrongheadedness in the bills. We all want to do something to reform health care, but we don't want to do the WRONG thing. We don't want to make the health care system even worse. The Democrats are looking to finish up and vote on ObamaCare in a couple weeks. Time is running out.

  • http://anti-marx.blogspot.com/ sunklhammer

    The modern dem party should be called the Hypocrit Party.

    Historically typical of marxist/leninist/alinkyites, the left's MO is to say what they think the people want to hear in order to win their votes, and then govern from their secret, hidden agenda.

    Unless the "nuclear option" is invoked, there won't be a "healthcare plan."

  • larry d.

    Under Obama's leadership the dem party and the administration have been pretty consistent in their disregard for free speech. At the same time Obama is big enough on propaganda to try and use the NEA for that purpose. It's pretty creepy.

  • averagejoe5

    They are liars and thieves.
    They are hypocrits to the nth degree. and they lied about and caused the bank failures to get Obama elected. This is the news today, after all of the talk about how the banksters ruined the country. FHA is near emergency measures because it is reaching it's reserve limits. Fannie and Freddie are still producing loans with 3% or less down and with subprime credit. The banks are returning the money with interest and still no industrial jobs are being created.

    Hypocrit Barney Frank who along with Obama, Emanuel, Dodd threatened the sec and fed and screamed that the best way to fix the economy especially the fed and and the banks was with a superregulator, came out totally gainst the idea today. Frank just changed his mind over night. He decided it wasn't a good idea. (Sort of like how Chris Dodd changed the law so that the banksters would still get their huge bonus', then he tried to lie about it, remember that.) Nice. Why? Because the Banksters that Rev so often complains about are actually Democrats and are all apart of the scheme to rip off the American taxpayer. This really is going to far.
    The dollar today reached the it's lowest levels since the Dems collapsed the economy in 2007/2008. Why?
    Also, the treasury is losing strength. If you are invested in treasurys sell them. They had a miserable securities aution today.
    People are all excited about the DOW going to 10000. Do you know it is leveraged at 16 to 18:1? Which is dangerously over leveraged? When Bush was in office it was 10-12:1. If there were to be a sudden glitch in the market, this market would collapse like like a straw house. Pay off your homes and cars first then your other bills, folks. We aren't out of the weeds yet. This economy is brittle.
    Another announcement out today. Green jobs are being scrapped at a faster rate than ACORN signed up ficticious voter registrations. What they had projected was just hype. Our main source of jobs will be from infrastructure jobs which are like a cancer unless we increase our industrial and import business.
    This was not a good day in the markets or for business news.
    One piece of good news for the Democrat victims, they are extending your unemployment benefits by 13 more weeks making a grand total of 65 weeks of eligibility. Oh yeah baby. That creates an incentive to find work. I guess the dems feel they have to do that since they've all but killed the industries that would support the unemployeed.
    Sorry this wasn't about healthcare King. I chose to play off the word hypocrit.

  • walter
  • The Irreverend

    @Walter:

    Cantor's answer was exactly right. If the relative who lost their job has no income, they would be eligible for government assistance via medicaid in most cases. If they have income and simply declined COBRA coverage, then they opted, in effect, to self insure. Insurance is nothing more than a financial planning tool to minimize financial exposure (risk) in the event of illness. Sometimes people decline coverage because they want to spend their money on other things and gamble that they won't need care. Why shouldn't they pay out of pocket for that decision?

    In cases of true hardship, I see many examples of physicians who go out of their way to provide care for people in these circumstances, from adjusting fees, arranging payment plans, forgiving balances, or simply providing care without charge.

    Additionally, hospitals are given money by the government to subsidize care for treatments provided to people that cannot otherwise pay for services. They have social workers on staff whose job it is to arrange this kind of care.

    Lastly, while I suspect you might not have friends, there is a social safety net for most people comprised of family, friends, churches, and other groups. They often provide a means to assist people who are fighting serious illnesses.

    All of these mechanisms are in place today and function without direction from Washington.

    It's all well and good to bring out sad stories (seems to be a liberal crutch) to attempt to sway opinions, but you are extremely naive to think that unfortunate circumstances will disappear just because a new federal program goes into effect. In fact, I would posit that there would probably be more than exist at present. That, however, is impossible to prove and I hope that we will never find that out.

  • walter

    not reverend sez……."Additionally, hospitals are given money by the government to subsidize care for treatments provided to people that cannot otherwise pay for services."

    and then sez….."All of these mechanisms are in place today and function without direction from Washington."

    Huh?

  • walter

    King, hipocracy aside, what do you think about cutting $622 BILLION from medicare and medicaid over 10 years

    if we could get doctors to stop cheating the system we could save $60 BILLION

  • The Irreverend

    Keep trying Walter – focus on the minutia and ignore the entire point. Nothing new here. I bet you ran your fingernails down the chalkboard when you were in school. You're good at being annoying.

  • camackey

    @ DA KING

    I keep asking for the conservative plan to reform healthcare. You keep ignoring the question. Why? Is there no conservative plan for healthcare reform? Why would the party of no not have a rational well thought out plan. Because if any type of healthcare reform is passed it is a victory for Obama. The conservative party talks a good game but in the end it is all about business as usual.

    If there is a detailed healthcare reform plan that is supported by the party of NO please link to it so everyone can compare detail by detail the merits of both plans. Also if there is a neutral third party cost analysis of this plan please link to it.

    Lastly if there is no plan does this mean that the conservative wing believes that American business can support the ever increasing burden that the present system of healthcare insurance imposes?

    I patiently await your answer.. Thanks for your time

  • camackey

    Walter

    I guess you are saying that if you do not work at a high paying job and can save enough to be able to afford COBRA if you are laid off your best bet is to beg from your friends, neighbors and other charitable organizations. If you can't do that you should die.

    I think I have summarized your argument correctly. I think the better method is to use the immortal words of John F. Kennedy. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!!!" To me that means because I got lucky, I was able to start a company which used the infrastructure provided to me by government, to become very comfortable. If I need to pay a few extra dollars a week to support my country in its time of need so be it. I realize that with the Reagan revolution that type of thinking went away for most people. Most people only think of themselves, but I have to think of the 47 million people in this country without insurance.

    If you are thinking about yourself first it still makes sense to get as many of those people insured as possible because it will lower healthcare cost. Because a higher percentage of cost will actually be paid.

  • http://anti-marx.blogspot.com/ sunklhammer

    Hey cama-whatever you call yourself…..the GOP has several alternative plans for health care reform. Guess who won't let them present it? Did you say the dems, who control both chambers of Congress? Give that boy a kewpie doll!!!!!

    The GOP have proposed tort reform. The dems wouldn't have anything to do with it. The GOP proposed allowing all insurance companies to offer their services in every state, creating the competition the dems say their plan would encourage…which just happens to be a stinking pile of horseshit. The government doen't have to show a profit to continue operating…they can just print more money. Think about that for a while, you idiot.
    The fact that morons like you don't want to hear is that the GOP has proposed healthcare reform that provides coverage for all, at a lower cost, and doesn't increase the deficit. Do some research and educate yourself so that you don't come across as such an ignorant and un-informed A-hole, OK?

  • fourfoos

    Irreverend

    If the relative who lost their job has no income, they would be eligible for government assistance via medicaid in most cases. If they have income and simply declined COBRA coverage,

    Your kidding right? Medicaid kicks in when everything is gone – as in gone. Something like $3200 in assets minus the home if a spouse is living in the home – it does allow them to keep something like $37 a month for expenses. And COBRA often costs more than twice what the person was paying for health insurance while employed. I have helped 4 relatives negotiate the US Health Care Messs. Yes there is a social net out there but why should someone have to worry about finding that those social services when they should be concentrating on surviving the illness. Why should someone out there who has managed to accumulate some things in life like a home etc. have to loose it all before they can get help from Medicaid? The US needs a better system and I personally think Insurance should not be a part of it because Insurance is for things that may not happen – things for which you can calculate the risk of it occurring. Death and illness are certain.

  • walter

    tort reform….how much is that going to save?

    from a previous thread…..Insurers' Anti-Trust Exemption
    By dday Friday Sep 18, 2009 10:00am John Conyers and some allies on the House Judiciary Committee have come up with a fabulous way to get the insurance industry in line – by threatening to remove their anti-trust exemption. Conyers is a dem

    in 2007 Patrick Leahy sponsered S.618 wich delt with the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Leahy is a dem

    "…….the GOP has proposed healthcare reform that provides coverage for all, at a lower cost, and doesn't increase the deficit." Give us a link

  • The Irreverend

    @fourfoos:

    Cobra is expensive as it reflects the employer portion of costs, obviously. Ohio Medicaid eligibility is largely based upon income. A family of 4 can have income of up to $1654/mo and still be eligible:

    http://jfs.ohio.gov/Ohp/consumers/HSHFIncomeGuidelines.pdf

    Alternately, there are many low cost / high deductible plans that provide umbrella protection in the event of catastrophic illness. Looking at the numbers, a family of 3 can essentially limit their risk to $10k per person or $20k per family for under $200 a month. You can run the numbers on the Summa website to verify this.

    Just because death and illness are certain, that does not excuse a person from failing to plan for that eventuality. Its just as likely that at some point I will be involved in an auto accident, through no fault of my own. Does that entitle me to have you pay for part of my car insurance?

  • fourfoos

    The problem is that when someone looses their coverage they must essentially liquidate their assets to qualify for help and I suspect you and most others on this blog would say that it was a good deal for someone to liquidate their assets to be able to receive treatment to live but I do not think it is right and it is not right in other countries in the civilized world. Now how far would 10K go in cancer treatment? Nine years ago it was in excess of 20K for one day of treatment for cancer at University Hospitals in Cleveland. Maybe 10K would cover 1 or 2 hours today. I would think you would want everyone you contact in your everyday life to have health coverage like immunizations – duh? A few statistics

    between 44,000 and 98,000 patients die every year in American hospitals of iatrogenic infections or as the consequence of a mistaken diagnosis or a bungled operation. American hospitals and doctors are paid for the amount of care they produce, not for its effectiveness or its quality. Medical error ranks as the country's eighth leading cause of death, more deadly than breast cancer or highway accidents.

    Americans in 2007 paid $7,421 per capita for health care as opposed to $2,840 paid by the Finns and $3,328 by the Swedes, but life expectancy in the United States is not as long as it is in 30 other countries, among them Finland and Sweden; the first year infant mortality rate in the United States is higher than it is in some forty other countries, among them Slovenia and Singapore. A newborn child stands a better chance of survival in Minsk and Havana than it does in New York or Washington.

    The money allocated to health care in most other developed countries (in Canada and France as well as in Germany and Japan) provides medical insurance for the entire citizenry. Not in America; 46 million citizens (15% of the population) are uninsured. Patients with sufficient funds can buy a brain implant or a bionic eye, but an estimated 22,000 people died in 2006 for lack of insurance; 59 million other people reported their inability to receive needed medical attention.

    ..American healthcare shopping mall now offers expensive diagnostic tests that allow upwards of 6 million Americans to enjoy the benefit of high-priced bodily home improvements — Titanium knees, Peruvian kidneys, two hour erections and a sunny disposition. Of the 1.5 million Americans expected to declare personal bankruptcy this year, 60% will be forced to do so to pay their medical bills.

    You call this a system. Even if you have prepared for your accident or cancer or hangnail do you really want to use this system? Oh may you are rich . I am and I have enough sense to know this is not a system I want to trust my life to.

  • fourfoos

    I heard an interesting interview on NPR advocating one way trips to Mars because the return trip is so expensive. The more I think about it the more I think it is perfect for many Libertarians and Conservatives. Then they could really be independent and self sufficient. They could walk the talk. I like it.

  • The Reverend

    The Irreverend agrees with the words of Cantor. That's how some who already "have" think about those who don't. It's narcississtic and selfish, but it's how many conservatives think.

    Problem is….EVERYONE is one medical disaster away from financial disaster. EVERYONE.
    To think otherwise is just denial.

    King, here's what Bush proposed….

    "the administration is seeking an even more far-reaching change to Medicare — capping the amount the government spends on the program.

    Under current law, if the portion of Medicare spending that comes from the general treasury (as opposed to payroll taxes or beneficiary premiums) rises above 45 percent, the president is required to make savings recommendations to Congress, which is free to ignore them. HHS Secretary Leavitt says the administration wants to put some teeth in that requirement: "If it goes above 45 percent, that it will trigger a series of actions that would keep it at 45 percent," he said.

    And if Congress does not act, an across-the-board cut of 0.4 percent would be imposed on all Medicare payments, instead."

    Bush was going to cut medicare fees to doctors and hospitals, arbitrarily and across the board. Obama is planning on eliminating the windfall to private insurers in the Medicare Advantage program.

    And you're also wrong on the Humana story. Any private group working hand in hand with the government in the Medicare and Medicaid programs are forbidden from scaring seniors and lying about those programs. Humana did what they did to protect their beloved profits…..and you defend the indefensible actions of Humana in allegiance to your own private industry=good, government=bad , ideology.

  • The Irreverend

    @FourFools:

    I'll try to go slowly here. The $10k mentioned is the maximum amount the person would have to pay out of pocket before insurance covers the remainder of the treatment. It's NOT a cap on the total amount of care or benefits.

    Again, individuals do not have to liquidate all of their assets in order to receive Medicaid family coverage. It sounds like you are confusing this with nursing home requirements for extended care.

    As far as your random "fact" spewing, it isn't very persuasive. The high cost of care here can be attributed to defensive medical practices because of our litigious society, along with poor planning by people to manage their end of life care.

    Are you seriously arguing that if you needed a heart transplant you would be more comfortable in Sweden than the Cleveland Clinic?

    On a personal note, the notion that patriotism = willingness to pay more taxes is ridiculous. If you are "rich" (whatever that means) nothing is stopping you from creating a foundation to help people who are less fortunate. The fact that you claim to be successful and don't know the difference between "loose" and "lose" undermines your credibility. Invest in a dictionary!

  • Da King

    camackey,
    You're on the internet. Google the words 'republican health care plan," and you will find the GOP plans. There are more than one. I don't talk much about them because it's pointless. GOP plans have no chance to be passed, and are therefore basically irrelevant. I have, however, already talked about some of the good ideas the GOP has that should be incorporated into health care reform, such as, nationwide insurance competition, tort reform, and making health care insurance tax deductible.

  • fourfoos

    Irreverend

    Ya I forgot the "be" after may too. When I get to typing fast I typo sometimes and I misread your 10K. Are you happy now? I do have a foundation, actually a trust, for a small group of people with a specific problem. I supply 4 rent free homes to 4 people and they are not relatives. What do you do? Who said patriotism = willingness to pay more taxes? I didn't.
    Patriotism is loving one's country and participating in it to make it as good a country as it can be in my book and if that means paying more taxes then so be it. I have paid huge amounts of taxes in my lifetime and the chance that I will ever get back as much as I have paid in is close to nil. I would like those taxes to benefit my country as a whole not just a select few. Would consider signing up to go to Mars?

  • fourfoos

    OMG too late I did not type the "you." I saw it after I hit submit. Sorry.

  • Da King

    Rev,
    Obama is also planning to cut fees to doctors and hospitals. It's the same thing Bush proposed, except Obama's cuts are larger. The Medicare Advantage cuts Obama is planning are in addition to that, and they will reduce Medicare Advantage's "plus" services (the very reason there is a Medicare Advantage program in the first place is for those extra services that Medicare does not cover).

  • Da King

    Irreverend,
    I'm glad you brought up the 'loose" vs. "lose" mistake. It's a small thing, but I run across that mistake ALL the time on the internet. I've always wondered if it was a spellcheck problem or something, because it's so rampant.

  • Da King

    fourfoos,
    Except for your comment about Libertarians taking a one-way trip to Mars (it's too cold this time of year, or any time of year for that matter), I appreciate your responses.

    I sympathize with the plight of persons who are bankrupted by medical expenses. That portion of ObamaCare I agree with. Mandates to insurance companies to not exclude pre-existing conditions, to not be able to cancel insurance when people get sick, those are the right things to do, but they DO drives insurance costs up. I also understand the moral imperative to get everyone insured. No problems with that from this hard-hearted Libertarian/Conservative.

    The problem with the ObamaCare bills so far is, they don't bend down the health care cost curve. The number one problem with our health care system, as you pointed out yourself, is that it costs too much. The growing uninsured problem is a result of that. Businesses increasingly cannot afford to insure their employees. Individuals cannot afford to insure themselves. Most of the unemployed sure cannot afford the high cost of COBRA. Yet, as the CBO has pointed out repeatedly, the various Democratic health care reform bills drive the costs up instead of down. Medicare premiums will increase. Prescription drug prices will increase. This is not the reform we need. In addition to getting no concessions from insurers, the Dems are ignoring ideas that WILL drive the cost curve down. In the end, we are left with little more than a government mandate that everyone purchase health insurance. To paraphrase Obama from last year's presidential debate, "the problem with health care is not that we aren't forcing people to buy health care insurance." Now he's changed 180 degrees.

    Back to the drawing board on health care reform, and this time, it should be a bipartisan effort including the best ideas from both sides, and it should engage health care practitioners and insurance companies for their ideas too, in order to find a real solution.

  • fourfoos

    Spell check problem? They are both words so no spell checking involved. It is a usage problem as in – The loose woman will lose her virginity. I know it is a politically incorrect sentence but it it what I thought of. King would you consider signing up to go to Mars? I am not advocating it to anyone in particular. I am just curious as to what kind of person would do it. I first thought it would be a Libertarian sort of thing to do but then thought they might all shoot one another trying to protect whatever they accumulate so I am not sure. Would they help one another? Would everyone grow their own little plot of hydroponic vegetables or would they collaborate? Would they have a community doctor or would everyone just take care of themselves? If they were not careful they might build the same sort of system they left here on earth. It is really a fascinating thing to think about.

  • Da King

    My advantage over y'all is, I can go back and fix my typos after I hit 'enter,' (and I just did that with my previous comment). The rest of you can't.

  • Da King

    How about the moon instead of Mars ? I'd sign up for that, but it would have to be round trip. I have no desire to live there permanently. Libertarians believe people should be able to do what they WANT to do. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most Libertarians would NOT choose to go to Mars.

    I can't believe I'm actually discussing this :-)

    For the record, Libertarians are not anarchists, which is what your comments seem to imply. Voluntary cooperative efforts are just peachy, but if an individual wants to go live alone, that's fine too.

  • fourfoos

    Thanks King. I have a better understanding now. I googled libertarian vs anarchist and I was a tad confused but I have to share what I found.

    An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican.

    and the best answer

    Libertarians believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism. Anarchists who believe in these things usually call themselves libertarians.

  • Da King

    I guess people can spin definitions, but the traditional definition of anarchy is 'no government,' correct ? Libertarians don't believe in that, though there are varying degrees. The old joke at a Libertarian party meeting is that it's so hard to get Libertarians to agree with each other that it's difficult to organize them into a group. They are too independent.

    Going to lp.org is the best way to find out what the Libertarian party is about. It's about limited Constitutional government and resistance to all-powerful states, whether they be communist, socialist, fascist, or whatever.

    http://www.lp.org/

  • walter

    tort reform…….how much is that going to save

  • Da King

    Lots, if it's done right. I was talking to a nurse at a nursing home a couple days ago, and she told me she was going to quit nursing because all she does is paperwork instead of patient care. She has to spend most of her day documenting every single little thing to avoid liability. Our health care system has become a bureaucratic mess.

  • walter

    lots……how much is lots?

  • Da King

    lots is more than a little.

  • walter

    actually, you don't even know if it would save anything

  • roysoldboy

    Walter, when my second son was born in 1985 the young man who got to deliver his first baby at that time told me afterward that our good doctor who was responsible for the birth and the entire pregnancy was paying over $25,000 just to deal with those kids. The man charged us a whole $600 for the pre-natal care and most didn't pay anywhere that much. He charged according to what people could afford. He birthed 45 babies that year. You get out your trusty calculator and figure if he lost money for taking on pregnancies. The price would be much higher today that 24 years ago and surgeons would have to pay a lot more than that country doctor did.

    If you aren't careful you will trip over your semantics one of these days.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).