Jul 18 2012
Independent Women’s Voice on Obamacare
Fellow Patriot,
The Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the Constitutionality of ObamaCare sets a disturbing and dangerous precedent. Their ruling in effect confirms that there are no limitations whatsoever on the powers of Congress.
To use the now-famous example from the oral arguments in this case, if Congress wished to mandate that everyone buy and eat broccoli, the Court has essentially ruled today that they have such a power.
Just as dangerously, ObamaCare takes control of people’s health care decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and puts them instead into the hands of unaccountable government bureaucrats. By making doctors answerable ultimately to the government and not to their patients, this threatens to corrupt the very foundation of medical ethics.
It is clear that, irrespective of the intentions of those who passed this law, the Act will impair access, increase costs, reduce choice, cripple innovation, and diminish quality of care.
In the wake of this disappointing decision from the Supreme Court, Independent Women’s Voice will continue our efforts to see to it that this deeply unpopular and perilous government take-over of private health care decisions is fully and completely repealed.
It is important to note that the Court’s ruling today isn’t the end of the challenges to this law. In fact, it’s just one of the many Constitutional challenges to ObamaCare, including cases regarding privacy, the conscience exemption, and freedom of contract. And, there’s also the issue of the IRS now taxing employers without Congressional authorization and absent any statutory authority to do so.
The Court’s decision today also reaffirms the importance of The ObamaCare Repeal Pledge.
With ObamaCare having been upheld by the court, it is now even more necessary and important for any and all candidates seeking elected office and all incumbents currently holding office to sign the Pledge and demonstrate to the American people that they are serious about repeal of ObamaCare and willing to be held accountable for taking the necessary steps to ensure full repeal.
Independent Women’s Voice looks forward to continuing to lead the charge for repeal through the ObamaCare Repeal Pledge, as well as being a part of crafting new, patient-centered health care reform that empowers individuals once the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is fully and completely repealed.
Thank you, Heather R. Higgins, President & CEO, Independent Women’s Voice
Jul 19, 2012 @ 12:55:45
Is there really “more to come”? This is pretty fun.
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices) ( Citation: An entire section of the bill, called Title VII, is devoted to this, starting on page 766 )
Section actually begins on page 747. It actually allows the HHS secretary, not the FDA, to approve generics. No mention of the word “more”.
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) ( Citation: Page 235, sec. 2501 )
Really? That rebate comes from Monopoly money? Or, the drug company is just a charity?
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn’t directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 684, sec. 1181 )
“that the government doesn’t directly control”, except when it does: ‘‘(f) BOARD OF GOVERNORS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Institute shall have a Board of Governors which shall consist of the following members: ‘‘(A) The Director of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [which is a division of HHS, whose director is appointed by, wait for it, BHO] (or the Director’s designee). ‘‘(B) The Director of the National Institutes of Health [who is appointed by, wait for it, BHO] (or the Director’s designee). ‘‘(C) Seventeen members appointed, not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this section, by the Comptroller General of the United States [who is appointed by, wait for it, BHO].”
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 518, sec. 4205 )
A 2008 ERS [that would be a division of the USDA] analysis found no evidence that label use was associated with reduced intake of calories, saturated fat, or cholesterol. Apparently, fatty don’t read too good.
It makes a “high-risk pool” for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of “pre-existing conditions” altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered “pre-existing conditions” can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. ( Citation: Page 49, sec. 1101, Page 64, sec. 2704, and Page 65, sec. 2702 )
“For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered “pre-existing conditions” can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them”. You mean, the way it works right now, except that I don’t pay the “different rate”, right?
It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past (yes, insurers really did deny coverage for that) ( Citation: Page 66, sec. 2705 )
It forbids insurance companies from using risk assessments to set premiums for those who, while unfortunately having suffered abuse, will accrue higher medical costs. Your own NYT reported that in 1997 those extra costs topped $357m annually. Obamacare does your charity with my money. Obama does a lot of your wish list with my money.
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
Holy Utopia, this won’t cost a dime, Batman.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 942, sec. 5000B )
Now is it a penalty, or a tax? Someone call John Roberts.
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won’t get any more coverage because they have hit a “lifetime limit”. Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can’t tell that person that he’s used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won’t cover him anymore. They can’t do this for lifetime spending, and they’re limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2711 )
So, can I also give my grocery store $500 for the month but keeping on taking food after I pass that limit on the 23rd? Sweet.
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26. ( Citation: Page 34, sec. 2714 )
“Kids” = 26 years old? That must explain the Obama youth vote.
No more “pre-existing conditions” for kids under the age of 19. ( Citation: Page 64, sec. 2704 and Page 76, sec. 1255 )
So, even if they have a pre-existing condition, they don’t? Wow, that Obama really is a magic man. Oh, and who pays for the existing, non-existent pre-existing condition? More of your charity with my money, I suppose.
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. ( Citation: Page 66, sec. 2794 )
Now, when an insurer can’t charge a customer what the product costs, then who’s going to pick up that tab? Can I get that deal at my local gas station and have the owner charge the difference to you?
People in a “Medicare Gap” get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend. ( Citation: Page 398, sec. 3301 )
Awesome. Can I get a rebate for the extra tax (or is it a penalty?) that I have to pay?
Insurers can’t just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2712 ) Actually, they can’t drop them at all. So, can I also now make a dinner reservation for 4 but show up with 8 and demand to be served for the price of 4? Obamanomics gets better all the time.
Insurers have to tell customers what they’re spending money on. (Instead of just “administrative fee”, they have to be more specific).
This is weird, only because they didn’t have to tell us what was in the bill before they passed it.
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they’re turned down. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )
And the process must be “in accordance with any standards established by the Secretary of Labor” and “Secretary of Health and Human Services”. Noooo. This isn’t government control of health care.
Anti-fraud funding is increased and new ways to stop fraud are created. ( Citation: Page 718, sec. 6402 )
“New way” is defined as allowing the government to seize your private medical records. That used to take a judge—now, just the word of BHO.
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. ( Citation: Starting on page 363, the entire section “Part II” seems to deal with this )
It actually just expands the scope of a “demonstration project” which, by definition, is something that we do not know if it works or not. Great idea.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
There’s no citation here, but taking your word that it’s in the bill, what the hell does this mean. It sounds to me like “more thoroughly” means telling them when it’s time for their illness to come to an end, i.e. death panel.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly. ( Citation: Page 511, sec. 4202 )
It cuts costs for a private company by giving them our tax dollars—BRILLIANT!!!!!
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ). ( Citation: Page 55, sec. 1103 )
Cue the chirping crickets
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness by paying half the cost of the investment. (Note – this program was temporary. It already ended) ( Citation: Page 849, sec. 9023 )
Taxpayer dollars for “innovative science”—Solyndra anyone?
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they’re not price-gouging customers. ( Citation: Page 41, sec. 1101 )
The government confiscates “unreasonable” profit from private companies—welcome to The People’s Republic of America
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn’t paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover. ( Citation: Page 819, sec. 9003 )
Uhhh, no. HSAs (Health Savings Account) and MSAs (Medical Savings Account) are private accounts for which individuals use tax-free savings to pay their medical bills. “Your insurer” isn’t paying for anything. YOU, however, are just getting a little more screwing from BHO.
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. ( Citation: Page 819, sec. 9002 )
Right, so they can know how much to tax you.
Any new health plans must provide preventive care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2713 )
Why not make them also provide time shares on a Caribbean Island? That would fit the definition of “preventative care”. I’m sure that it doesn’t cost anything.
Jul 08, 2012 @ 18:41:20
So here’s what’s in effect for “obamacare”. Yes there’s more to come, but c’mon try to not agree with this stuff:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices) ( Citation: An entire section of the bill, called Title VII, is devoted to this, starting on page 766 )
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) ( Citation: Page 235, sec. 2501 )
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn’t directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 684, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 518, sec. 4205 )
It makes a “high-risk pool” for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of “pre-existing conditions” altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered “pre-existing conditions” can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. ( Citation: Page 49, sec. 1101, Page 64, sec. 2704, and Page 65, sec. 2702 )
It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past (yes, insurers really did deny coverage for that) ( Citation: Page 66, sec. 2705 )
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 942, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won’t get any more coverage because they have hit a “lifetime limit”. Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can’t tell that person that he’s used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won’t cover him any more. They can’t do this for lifetime spending, and they’re limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26. ( Citation: Page 34, sec. 2714 )
No more “pre-existing conditions” for kids under the age of 19. ( Citation: Page 64, sec. 2704 and Page 76, sec. 1255 )
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. ( Citation: Page 66, sec. 2794 )
People in a “Medicare Gap” get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend. ( Citation: Page 398, sec. 3301 )
Insurers can’t just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they’re spending money on. (Instead of just “administrative fee”, they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they’re turned down. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )
Anti-fraud funding is increased and new ways to stop fraud are created. ( Citation: Page 718, sec. 6402 )
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. ( Citation: Starting on page 363, the entire section “Part II” seems to deal with this )
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly. ( Citation: Page 511, sec. 4202 )
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ). ( Citation: Page 55, sec. 1103 )
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness by paying half the cost of the investment. (Note – this program was temporary. It already ended) ( Citation: Page 849, sec. 9023 )
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they’re not price-gouging customers. ( Citation: Page 41, sec. 1101 )
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn’t paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover. ( Citation: Page 819, sec. 9003 )
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. ( Citation: Page 819, sec. 9002 )
Any new health plans must provide preventive care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2713 )
Jul 04, 2012 @ 10:09:39
It’s always nice to see that the trolls from the DNC (or ACORN or AFSCME or whichever group yanks your chain) are on the job.
You sure put a hell of a lot of time into something of which “it’s hard to give credence to…” which tells us, of course, that she must be right or, as a famous man once said, the hit dog’s yelpin’.
And right she is. A crusory review of Obamacare uncovers this nugget, “the proposal shall include recommendations to reduce Medicare payments under parts C and D, such as reductions in direct subsidy payments to Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans”. That, my intellectually dishonest troll, is what’s known in the trade as “tak(ing) control of people’s health care decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and puts them instead into the hands of unaccountable government bureaucrats….”
You then, trolly–troll–troll, tell the next big lie, that a list of claims “all of which has been proven false, over and over again.” That would be true, except it’s not, and here’s evidence from one of your boys to prove it.
Your masters trumpeted in 2009 MIT economict Jonathan Gruber and his “research” that claimed that “What we know for sure,is that [the bill] will lower the cost of buying non-group health insurance.” Just a few years on, however, Jonny boy sings a different tune. He now says, in a study of CO, that, “It is important to recognize some limitations in our modeling of prices. In particular, given publicly available data we cannot incorporate the effects of the ban on pre-existing conditions exclusions. This ban will cause a rise in premiums as insurers are forced to cover conditions that they had previously excluded. In addition, there are new premium taxes on insurers that will raise premium rates…Overall, we cannot predict the net impacts of these factors on premiums without more analysis.”
So now, he says that costs will rise but he has no idea how much. So, what’s been proven false is the notion that Obamacare reduces costs, right super troll?
At this point I might say that, unfortunately, the reality of repeating a lie until it’s believed to be true has become a very effective stratagem for today’s DNC (ACORN, AFSCME, etc). I might say that, but I won’t.
The bottom line is, Troll Terrific, that your outrageous and unhinged claims really don’t deserve the time of day as they’re no more than a distraction from any constructive arguments. Except that apparently you need to spend a bunch of time during the day on this subject.
What’s key here is that Sen Bryant would allow such a dishonest diatribe (that would be your’s Sir Toll-a-lot) on is blog. The great thing is that it’s a simple and quick thing to disavow them.
Jul 02, 2012 @ 13:33:37
It’s somewhat disturbing to see a sitting state Senator allow his blog to be a pulpit for debunked gibberish, disingenuous fear mongering, and such intellectual dishonesty. Heather, when you say things like “ObamaCare takes control of people’s health care decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and puts them instead into the hands of unaccountable government bureaucrats, it’s hard to give credence to anything you say. All credibility pretty much vanishes at that point. But, it gets worse. You then proceed that it “will impair access, increase costs, reduce choice, cripple innovation, and diminish quality of care”, all of which has been proven false, over and over again. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but there hasn’t been, nor will there be, some mass round up of Grandmas and Down Syndrome babies to be brought in front of some panel to determine their fate. In all seriousness, such distracting augments that insults the intelligence of anyone that remotely understands this bill doesn’t really deserve a response. But unfortunately, the reality of repeating a lie until it’s believed to be true has become a very effective stratagem for today’s GOP.
You claim that ACA is a”deeply unpopular and perilous government take-over” is wrong on every front. “ObamaCare”, as you prefer to call it, is far more popular, or at least many aspects of it are, than you might care to admit. As for a “government takeover”, if memory serves me correctly, President Obama and Democrats ran a campaign on a promise to reform health care. It passed the House (which the people elected), passed the Senate (the people’s choice), was signed by the President (that unquestionably was put in office by the majority of voters) and was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court (which went through the rigorous vetting process of the Senate). So your “government takeover” is every bit as ludicrous as your above fear mongering.
Again, your outrageous and unhinged claims really don’t deserve the time of day as they’re no more than a distraction from any constructive arguments. What’s key here is that Sen Bryant would allow such a dishonest diatribe on is blog and that he’s very unlikely to disavow them.