BluntPolitics.com

Researched by Ric Joyner

This is a blog post from DailyKos.com which is a VERY leftist blog. They call themselves Kossacks and if you review their logo it appears to mimic the old Soviet Union communist propaganda art. Remember communism seeks to create an egalitarian society by taking wealth from others to give it to people who didn’t work or earn it and basically turning the entire country into slave labor with no opportunity.

Please follow the thread to see the “rock and the hard place” that President Obama is experiencing with several different factions in the democratic party, labor and left wing organizations that are for and against health care reform. President Obama has pandered to the left, unions and has helped to pay them back in the stimulus bill and even bailing out their pension plans in HR3200.

AFL-CIO: No Public Option, No Support

By BarbinMD

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 03:00:04 PM PDT

This is what it sounds like when someone representing the Democratic wing of the Party speaks:

Democratic lawmakers will not be able to count on the AFL-CIO’s support if they drop the public insurance option from the health care reform legislation, union officials said Tuesday.

The AFL-CIO’s incoming president, Richard Trumka, outlined “three absolute musts” in any overhaul package: a public option, an employer mandate and no tax on employer-provided health benefits.

Asked if the union would work against any bill that did not hit those targets, Trumka told reporters during a *briefing: “That means we won’t support the bill if it doesn’t have the public option.”

Please note I cannot find independent verification of *a briefing: Ric

And as Trumka declared last month during a speech to the Sheet Metal Workers International Association:

We need to send them a special message: it’s that you may have forgotten what the labor movement did to get you elected; but, by God, we never will! And if you stab us in the back on health care this year don’t you dare ask us for our support next year!

And the Max Baucus/Blue Dog wing of the Party needs to remember that — and that 2010 is just around the corner.

Overview of what the “left” believes is the next move for Obama.

Report: President to reveal health care deal-breakers

By Jed Lewison

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 04:30:04 PM PDT

Marc Ambinder delivers a report that has the feel of a trial balloon:

This time, the President is going to be specific. Next week, President Obama is going to give Democrats a health care plan they can begin to sell.

He plans to list specific goals that any health insurance reform plan that arrives at his desk must achieve, according to Democratic strategists familiar with the plan.

Strikingly, despite the tough “deal-breaker” language, there still seems to be a ton of wiggle room on the public option:

He will insist upon a mechanism to cut costs and increase competition among insurance companies — and perhaps will even specify a percentage rate — and he will say that his preferred mechanism remains a government-subsidized public health insurance option, but he will remain agnostic about whether the plan must include a robust public option. Officials won’t say whether the president intends to endorse a specific “trigger” mechanism if the competition mechanism fails, but they say he will make it clear that the final bill must contain language that increases competition.

Purely in political terms, if the White House’s goal is to generate enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that sort of approach won’t cut it. If they want to excite the base — and as Kos showed earlier, they need to — then they will need to come out more strongly for a public option, because it is the only mechanism that anybody has proposed that will meet his stated objectives.

Update (4:50, by Jed) — Remember that this sounds like a trial balloon, and it’s not coming from named sources. Nothing is written in stone. President Obama hasn’t said anything yet. If you don’t like what you’re hearing, the best thing to do is to let your voice be heard, whether at public events, phone calls to your senators and representatives, or whatever works best for you. Without your active involvement, AHIP could still win this thing.

Make a difference on Friday 9-11 and make the call. Your Representatives need to hear from you. They will be hearing from those who wish to take our freedom of choice, jobs and livelihood.

By Ric Joyner

eflex employees were told in meetings of the Senate Finance Committees plans to eliminate or cap employer tax breaks on employee benefits. After sharing this information with employees, and the impact that the cuts would have on them, they immediately asked what they could do to let help. Then we let them know that flex plans (FSAs) could lose its tax savings and eliminate our industry! Of course they were upset and began to let their voices be known to their Congressional Representatives.  www.house.gov and www.senate.gov

Here is the video the staff put together. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFOrHR637Qo&feature=channel_page

Please consider writing your representative. Here is a step by step guide.

http://napba.org/Flexplan.html

For a survey that you can send to your clients and they can pass on to their employees: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB229BAUR6MBC We are including this survey on each of our emails to customers and to clients. We will collect the data and send along to Congress.

Thanks again and pass this information along to clients, friends, and colleagues!

June 19, 2009

By DAVID HOGBERG
Investor’s Business Daily

Even as health care reform slows in the Senate over huge program costs, House Democrats doubled down Friday, betting on a more-expansive plan while offering few clues on how to pay for it.

Members from the House Ways and Means; Education and Labor; and Energy and Commerce committees released a “discussion draft” bill that reads like a reform wish list that will appeal to the Democrats’ base. It includes a public plan, a Medicaid expansion, subsidies for those up to 400% of the federal poverty level, and individual and employer mandates. Democrats expect it to cover about 95% of Americans.

It also might prove more costly than those of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that those bills would each cost over $1 trillion, while leaving tens of millions of people without coverage.

That sent Baucus back to the drawing board, announcing his Finance Committee would delay its hearings until after July 4.

He isn’t the only one pushing dates back. President Obama has backed off his July 31 deadline for getting a reform bill to his desk.

“I don’t think it’s a surprise that this is going to take some time to do. It’s an issue that we’ve been discussing for 40 years,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. “The president isn’t pessimistic about being able to get this through Congress this year.”

House Bill’s Cost Unknown

The CBO has yet to score the cost of a public plan or increasing Medicaid eligibility to 133% of the federal poverty level, as the House Democrat plan proposes.

Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said, “We’re going to pay for this bill. We’re going to pay for it by cutting down on expenditures in public programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and by reforms in the system that will hold down costs for everyone. And we’re going to pay for it with revenues.”

On the latter point, Ways and Means and other House panels are mulling a variety of tax hikes to pay for health care, including a value-added tax and a soda levy.

Tax hikes could be politically poisonous and cut the legs out from a tentative economic recovery. But the public also is increasingly worried about soaring budget deficits.

Also, a health plan would need 51 Senate votes if it’s fully paid for — but 60 if it’s not.

A previous CBO report concluded that some Democrat reforms would save money. The employer mandate and community rating would increase federal revenues by $48 billion and $5 billion, respectively, over 10 years. Requiring drugmakers to give the same rebate to Medicare Part D that they give to Medicaid would save $110 billion.

But the Democrats’ plan increases costs by closing the “donut hole” in Medicare Part D and eliminating annual Medicare physician payment cuts. CBO estimated that doing the latter would cost at least $318 billion over 10 years.

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., chairman of the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, was noncommittal on the cost of reform.

“We haven’t figured out exactly where we want that line to be,” he said when asked if the House would have to keep the cost at about $1 trillion. “A lot may depend on the level of cuts and savings. We don’t have CBO scores, so we really can’t say at this point.”

Baucus Balks

CBO scoring compelled Sen. Baucus to rework his plan. A new draft leaked to the media showed he had cut subsidies from 400% of poverty to 300% and Medicaid’s expansion from 150% of poverty to 133%.

Liberal Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein took the CBO score of the Baucus plan as a bad sign. “(H)ealth reform has just gotten harder. The hope that we could expand the current system while holding costs down appears to have been just that: a hope.”

At least one key House lawmaker seems unfazed.

“Everything is on the table. Nothing is locked in cement,” said Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. “I’ve been here a long time. We’ve got momentum.”

Surprise! People will lose their insurance and gain insurance with a net increase that moves us backwards! And sacrificing Flexible Spending Accounts hurts employees and employers by eliminating the ability to afford out of pocket medical expenses, childcare and insurance premiums to pay for the health care bill which will put millions on the uninsured list not to mention unemployment. And we will lose our freedom and choice of doctor regardless of what Obama promises.

Preliminary Analysis of Major Provisions Related to Health Insurance Coverage Under the Affordable Health Choices Act

CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation staff worked together to produce a preliminary  analysis of the major provisions related to health insurance coverage contained in the “Affordable Health Choices Act,” drafted by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).  The estimates are based on provisions from title 1 of the draft legislation released by HELP on June 9th. Among other things, the draft legislation would establish insurance exchanges (called “gateways”) through which individuals and families could purchase health insurance coverage. The proposed bill also would provide federal subsidies to substantially lower the cost of that coverage for some enrollees.

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

These new figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for several reasons. The estimates provided do not address the entire bill—only the major provisions related to health insurance coverage. Some details have not been estimated yet, and the draft legislation has not been fully reviewed. Also, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage.

CBO will continue to work on an ongoing basis with the HELP Committee and the other Senate and House committees involved in health care reform to provide estimates and analyses as legislation is developed.

"They" (pick a party) talk about 43,000,000 uninsured. (I don’t care the exact number so don’t argue with me…jeez that felt good saying that). We know that about 15,000,000 are illegal immigrants. BTW in Madison it is very difficult to see a doctor at night in the emergency room because it is filled up with indigent people. I have tried.
43,000,000- 15,000,000= 28,000,000 uninsured

Not good.

Ok there are about 220,000,000 Americans covered by some type of insurance. (I don’t care to break this down [government versus private] and again don’t argue with me because I will reach through this darn email and spank you…and that too felt good to say)

What is the ratio of actual uninsured then? 12.7% are not insured. Translated to glass half full….87.3 (or nearly 90%) are insured. WOW

Ok here is my question. Why do the democrats want to take an entire for-profit system (motive to provide excellence and efficiency) that works reasonably well for 90% of Americans and turn it over to the government as a non profit (no motive for excellence and no motive for efficiency thus the result is rationing (aka "guidelines to pay claims"). This is part of the democratic platform.

"and the government
33 should ensure that health insurance is affordable and provides meaningful coverage. As
34 affordable coverage is made available, individuals
35 should purchase health insurance and take steps to lead
36 healthy lives." DNC Platform Agenda (DNC Platform)

Why the government? Why not private sector? Is the private sector failing? Not when 90% of people are covered. When does the government need to take care of us from cradle to grave?

The republicans are not much better in their plans. But they don’t consider the government as a resource.

Our focus should be on covering the 12.7% people who are uninsured not destroying a system that works very well. And yes there are always exceptions! But lets focus on fixing the 12.7%.

My idea.

Sponsorship of Family or Single person without health care coverage. Why can’t a family register with a carrier and groups of employees purchase health insurance for a person in need? Or if they are between jobs someone can sponsor a short term medical plan.
The government was never intentioned to go this deeply into our lives and we should not let one party over the other turn our health care system over to the government. If anyone has any doubt about this look at Katrina and now look at Houston.

Focus on the issue. Fix the 13%.

By By JOY ARPIN, M.D., Naples and Edinburgh, Scotland

Saturday, March 29, 2008

My husband’s life was saved by the cardiac team at NCH’s Downtown Naples Hospital.

Within two to three minutes of his walking into the emergency room, he had an EKG which diagnosed a massive heart attack. Treatment was initiated and within 30 minutes of his arrival he was in the cardiac angiography suite where an emergency angioplasty and stent insertion was done.

His previously asymptomatic extensive coronary artery occlusions required a quadruple-bypass procedure three days later when his condition stabilized.

The efficiency and competence of the NCH team is remarkable. And anyone who had arrived at the ER with similar symptoms would have been treated as expeditiously! This is the best health care in the world and the cardiac care at NCH is amongst the very best at any hospital in the United States.

Our summer home is in the United Kingdom, where the National Health Service’s failings are a constant topic in the news media. There are incredibly long wait lists to have an MRI or other investigative procedure, for referral to see a specialist for cancer or coronary care, or to have elective procedures (joint replacement, for example).

The care is rationed and anyone who can afford to doesn’t use it.

The government is always setting new “target times” for access to a specialist or for surgery. They talk in terms of months, not days.

There is a thriving private health-care sector and many of the affluent come to the U.S. for care. Even middle-class people elect to go to clinics in India for joint-replacement surgery rather than wait the 18 months or so in the NHS for treatment.

We very much enjoy our summers in the U.K., but I have no doubt that had my husband suffered the same event as occurred last week, he would not have had access to the remarkably high quality and rapid care that saved his life here in Naples.

While our experience is anecdotal, the statistics and data confirming the failings of government-run health-care systems in the U.K., Canada and elsewhere are readily available.

Our medical-insurance system may not be perfect, but to use the British or Canadian systems as models to improve ours is ridiculous.

I hope the public and the politicians look at the facts before we dismantle what we now enjoy.

“Change’’ is not always improvement.

Dr. Arpin is a retired surgeon.