Abuses implementing Obamacare have already begun

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 2:12 PM GMT
    ObamaCare Rewards Friends, Punishes Enemies -
    The administration waives allies through the health law's onerous restrictions.

    By Karl Rove, Wall Street Journal, Opinion Section, January 6, 2011

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704576063892468779556.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    A primary task for the new Republican House majority is to undo as many of the pernicious effects of ObamaCare that it can. One of these effects is the spectacle of employers going hat-in-hand to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for waivers from some of the law's more onerous provisions.

    In September, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius began granting waivers to companies that provided workers "mini-med" coverage—low-cost plans with low annual limits on what the insurance will pay out. This followed announcements by some employers that they would have to drop these plans because they did not meet the new health law's requirement that 85% of premium income be spent on medical expenses.

    By early December, HHS had granted 222 such waivers to provide mini-med policies for companies including AMF Bowling and Universal Forest Product, as well as 43 union organizations. According to the department's website, the waivers cover 1,507,418 employees, of which more than a third, 525,898, are union members. Yet unionized workers make up only 7% of the private work force. Whatever is going on here, a disproportionately high number of waivers are being granted to administration allies.

    Then, on Dec. 21, Ms. Sebelius announced that insurance companies seeking rate increases of 10% or more in the individual or small group market must publicly justify the hikes under standards set by her department.

    Insurance regulation has traditionally been a state responsibility, and 43 states must already approve proposed insurance-rate increases. ObamaCare does not authorize HHS to deny rate increases, but the agency said that if a state "lacks the resources or authority" to conduct the kind of review the agency wants, it will conduct its own.

    This proposed regulation will erode the states' dominant role in insurance regulation, centralizing more power in Washington. The HHS announcement also mentioned that it will set different thresholds of what constitutes an "unreasonable" increase for every state by 2012.

    The Obama administration's behavior to date suggests that it will not hesitate to take care of its friends. The Senate Republican Policy Committee's health policy analyst, Chris Jacobs, points out that the administration has already given an extravagant gift to the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), a key player in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    The AARP provided a big chunk of the $121 million spent on ads supporting the bill's passage, as well as $21 million on lobbying in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. HHS's proposed regulations on Dec. 21 exempted the AARP's lucrative "Medigap" plans from the rate review and other mandates and requirements.

    The AARP and other Medigap providers can require a waiting period before seniors with pre-existing conditions have to be covered. Insurers covering those under 65 cannot.

    The AARP is also exempt from the new law's $500,000 cap on executive compensation for insurance executives. (The nonprofit's last CEO received over $1.5 million in compensation in his last full year, 2009.) It won't pay any of the estimated $14 billion in new taxes on insurance companies, though according to its 2008 consolidated financial statement, it gets more money from its insurance offerings than it does from dues, grants and private contributions combined. Nor will it have to spend at least 85% of its Medigap premium dollars on medical claims, as Medicare Advantage plans must do; the AARP will be held to a far less restrictive 65%.

    It's not hard to connect the dots. The Obama administration is using waivers to reward friends. On the flip side, business executives will be discouraged from contributing to the president's opponents or from taking any other steps that might upset the White House or its political appointees at HHS.

    This is not what people had in mind when candidate Obama promised in his acceptance speech in August 2008 to undo "the cynicism we all have about government."


    In a speech at the University of Iowa last March, the president heralded health-care reform as "a new set of rules that treats everybody honestly and treats everybody fairly." Determining whether that is true will be another task for House Republicans. They have an obligation to look into this matter, and Mr. Obama can hardly object. It was former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, whom the president frequently quotes, who wrote in 1913 that sunlight "is the best of disinfectants."

    Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 3:00 PM GMT
    You wrote in your last sentence "Mr Rove is the former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff to President George W Bush"

    What you left off of this is that Dubya's nickname for Mr Rove was I believe "turd Blossom" or something similarly derogatory. Mr Rove has been proven to be about the most devious of sidekicks to any previous president. He's been accused and protected from prosecution for, Framing a Governor in the South, Leading the way to firing several Judges who didn't Play well with the "bushies", Helped lead us to war based on lies, Assisted in planning to steal elections, one in florida and one in Ohio, Orchestraited the outing of a female undercover agent, thus exposing very important efforts on the illegal transfer of Chemicals for weapons of mass distruction, A treasonous act in itself. This is a partial list for which his rules were, win at all costs, no matter the method.

    Anything written by Carl Rove is immediately suspect, and this story of his should be considered full of exagerations and missinformation, after all, who does he work for ? The NEO CONS who set our country into disasterous wars based on Lies, and now for False News deceiving millions, and its sister business rag, Wall Street Journal. Rove is anything but Credible.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jan 07, 2011 3:05 PM GMT
    yes, karl rove can certainly be counted on to write a fair, balanced, unbaised opinion-article on this topic. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 3:10 PM GMT
    I was expecting this response. Obviously you are unable to address any of the points so you go after the messenger.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 3:19 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidI was expecting this response. Obviously you are unable to address any of the points so you go after the messenger.



    When the messenger is suspect of far worse than what he's accusing others of in his writings, then he is not the person to be pointing fingers !! but far right wingers don't have the ethics most of us possess, most of us with his record would quietly go away for our own self protection, but in his NEO CON group, their Hubris has no limits because they are well protected from the results of their actions. When I read this information from a credible source I'll start believing, but anything from this "turd blossom" amounts to little more than the first word in his nickname Dubya gave him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 3:28 PM GMT
    My question for Socalfitness is this:

    Why is the Republican party intent on suspending their own Budget Accountability requirement for the repeal of the healthcare legislation.

    Surely you agree that Congress at this very moment ought to be focussed on:

    (i) Creating private sector jobs
    (ii) Eliminating the deficit.

    As a fiscal conservative, I am frankly appalled at their hypocrisy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 3:43 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidMy question for Socalfitness is this:

    Why is the Republican party intent on suspending their own Budget Accountability requirement for the repeal of the healthcare legislation.

    Surely you agree that Congress at this very moment ought to be focussed on:

    (i) Creating private sector jobs
    (ii) Eliminating the deficit.

    As a fiscal conservative, I am frankly appalled at their hypocrisy.

    I'm not supporting the thread being hijacked, but just to make a quick comment. If you are referring to the CBO position, that's because they are responding to how the bill was written to cook the books. Paul Ryan explains it well:
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/paul-ryan-actually-obamacare-will-increase-budget-deficit-700-billion-over-10-years_526794.htm
    Recommend starting your own thread to discuss it in greater detail with whomever wants to discuss it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 3:54 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim saidMy question for Socalfitness is this:

    Why is the Republican party intent on suspending their own Budget Accountability requirement for the repeal of the healthcare legislation.

    Surely you agree that Congress at this very moment ought to be focussed on:

    (i) Creating private sector jobs
    (ii) Eliminating the deficit.

    As a fiscal conservative, I am frankly appalled at their hypocrisy.

    I'm not supporting the thread being hijacked, but just to make a quick comment. If you are referring to the CBO position, that's because they are responding to how the bill was written to cook the books. Paul Ryan explains it well:
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/paul-ryan-actually-obamacare-will-increase-budget-deficit-700-billion-over-10-years_526794.htm
    Recommend starting your own thread to discuss it in greater detail with whomever wants to discuss it.


    You call that "well"? A short article of unsubstantiated assertions? It's impossible to tell whether his claim is true or not given the flimsy evidence.

    You need to learn to be less credulous.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jan 07, 2011 3:57 PM GMT
    sf, do you and the other "cut & paste" queen here, (southbeach), coordinate on your selective quotings everyday icon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 4:28 PM GMT
    rnch saidsf, do you and the other "cut & paste" queen here, (southbeach), coordinate on your selective quotings everyday icon_question.gif

    Yup, and we have a daily conference call of about a dozen people to coordinate our quotes. We also include metta8 to ensure all you little hens get a fair and balanced position.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jan 07, 2011 4:32 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    rnch saidsf, do you and the other "cut & paste" queen here, (southbeach), coordinate on your selective quotings everyday icon_question.gif

    Yup, and we have a daily conference call of about a dozen people to coordinate our quotes. We also include metta8 to ensure all you little hens get a fair and balanced position.


    aha!! a right wing conspiracy!! i knew it!! icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 5:02 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim saidMy question for Socalfitness is this:

    Why is the Republican party intent on suspending their own Budget Accountability requirement for the repeal of the healthcare legislation.

    Surely you agree that Congress at this very moment ought to be focussed on:

    (i) Creating private sector jobs
    (ii) Eliminating the deficit.

    As a fiscal conservative, I am frankly appalled at their hypocrisy.

    I'm not supporting the thread being hijacked, but just to make a quick comment. If you are referring to the CBO position, that's because they are responding to how the bill was written to cook the books. Paul Ryan explains it well:
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/paul-ryan-actually-obamacare-will-increase-budget-deficit-700-billion-over-10-years_526794.htm
    Recommend starting your own thread to discuss it in greater detail with whomever wants to discuss it.


    You call that "well"? A short article of unsubstantiated assertions? It's impossible to tell whether his claim is true or not given the flimsy evidence.

    You need to learn to be less credulous.


    Paul Ryan is a dumb as he is pretty. Nearly every reputable economist has demolished his plan as a deficit-increasing, social service-destroying pile of dog shit.

    And any thread that uses Karl Rove, one of the most profligate lying sociopaths to ever (dis)grace the Oval Office, does not merit an actual response.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 08, 2011 12:16 AM GMT
    That's smoke and Mirrors

    THIS is real icon_confused.gif

    PHOENIX - A second person denied transplant coverage by Arizona under a state budget cut has died, with this death "most likely" resulting from the coverage reduction, a hospital spokeswoman said Wednesday.

    University Medical Center spokeswoman Jo Marie Gellerman said the patient died Dec. 28 at another medical facility after earlier being removed from UMC's list for a liver transplant needed because of hepatitis C.

    http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/2nd-person-denied-ariz.-transplant-coverage-dies

    Second patient dies after Arizona reduces transplant coverage
    A hospital spokeswoman says the death 'mostly likely' resulted from a state budget cut.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-transplant-death-20110106,0,1750063.story

    Critics have slammed Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and the Republican-led Legislature for the transplant coverage reduction, and incoming state Senate Minority Leader David Schapira called on them to restore the approximately $1.4 million in funding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 12:44 AM GMT
    GQjock saidThat's smoke and Mirrors

    Don't worry about abuse or corruption by Democrats. It's just not real ya know, just smoke and mirrors.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 08, 2011 12:51 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidThat's smoke and Mirrors

    Don't worry about abuse or corruption by Democrats. It's just not real ya know, just smoke and mirrors.


    No I worry more that you believe something that Karl Rove wrote
    That's what I WORRY about icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 1:18 AM GMT
    GQjock said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidThat's smoke and Mirrors

    Don't worry about abuse or corruption by Democrats. It's just not real ya know, just smoke and mirrors.


    No I worry more that you believe something that Karl Rove wrote
    That's what I WORRY about icon_rolleyes.gif

    The responses in this thread do nothing but lend credence to what Karl Rove wrote. The group here represents avid followers of sites such as Huffington Post, MoveOn, MediaMatters, Daily Kos, MSNBC. These sites are well funded and have as a major objective discrediting anything written or spoken by a major conservative figure. Any statement by Karl Rove is akin to waving a red cape in front of a bull. These sites would like nothing better than to discredit anything Rove wrote, even if it meant stretching the truth a whole lot. The fact that the loyal followers here have not come up with anything to discredit Rove means the above sites have not come up with anything. That suggests Rove's points are pretty credible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 1:29 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    GQjock said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidThat's smoke and Mirrors

    Don't worry about abuse or corruption by Democrats. It's just not real ya know, just smoke and mirrors.


    No I worry more that you believe something that Karl Rove wrote
    That's what I WORRY about icon_rolleyes.gif

    The responses in this thread do nothing but lend credence to what Karl Rove wrote. The group here represents avid followers of sites such as Huffington Post, MoveOn, MediaMatters, Daily Kos, MSNBC. These sites are well funded and have as a major objective discrediting anything written or spoken by a major conservative figure. Any statement by Karl Rove is akin to waving a red cape in front of a bull. These sites would like nothing better than to discredit anything Rove wrote, even if it meant stretching the truth a whole lot. The fact that the loyal followers here have not come up with anything to discredit Rove means the above sites have not come up with anything. That suggests Rove's points are pretty credible.




    You will recall that your list of Media was not included in the report of ignorance fostered by the regular watchers/listeners to FALSE NEWS UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED, of which Karl Rove (turd blossom) is a regular deceiver. Remember the figures on how high the percentages were on those believing untruths from FALSE NEWS. as compared with those getting their information from such media as you listed. Red flags go up because the (turd blossom) is known to misslead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 1:42 AM GMT
    realifedad said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidThat's smoke and Mirrors

    Don't worry about abuse or corruption by Democrats. It's just not real ya know, just smoke and mirrors.


    No I worry more that you believe something that Karl Rove wrote
    That's what I WORRY about icon_rolleyes.gif

    The responses in this thread do nothing but lend credence to what Karl Rove wrote. The group here represents avid followers of sites such as Huffington Post, MoveOn, MediaMatters, Daily Kos, MSNBC. These sites are well funded and have as a major objective discrediting anything written or spoken by a major conservative figure. Any statement by Karl Rove is akin to waving a red cape in front of a bull. These sites would like nothing better than to discredit anything Rove wrote, even if it meant stretching the truth a whole lot. The fact that the loyal followers here have not come up with anything to discredit Rove means the above sites have not come up with anything. That suggests Rove's points are pretty credible.


    You will recall that your list of Media was not included in the report of ignorance fostered by the regular watchers/listeners to FALSE NEWS UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED, of which Karl Rove (turd blossom) is a regular deceiver. Remember the figures on how high the percentages were on those believing untruths from FALSE NEWS. as compared with those getting their information from such media as you listed. Red flags go up because the (turd blossom) is known to misslead.


    Rove's lies, treasonous actions, and general sociopathy have been well-documented by hundreds of writers, lawyers, film producers, web sites, and even other Republicans.

    That Socal believes Rove saying the sky is blue is all you need to know.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 1:46 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    realifedad said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidThat's smoke and Mirrors

    Don't worry about abuse or corruption by Democrats. It's just not real ya know, just smoke and mirrors.


    No I worry more that you believe something that Karl Rove wrote
    That's what I WORRY about icon_rolleyes.gif

    The responses in this thread do nothing but lend credence to what Karl Rove wrote. The group here represents avid followers of sites such as Huffington Post, MoveOn, MediaMatters, Daily Kos, MSNBC. These sites are well funded and have as a major objective discrediting anything written or spoken by a major conservative figure. Any statement by Karl Rove is akin to waving a red cape in front of a bull. These sites would like nothing better than to discredit anything Rove wrote, even if it meant stretching the truth a whole lot. The fact that the loyal followers here have not come up with anything to discredit Rove means the above sites have not come up with anything. That suggests Rove's points are pretty credible.


    You will recall that your list of Media was not included in the report of ignorance fostered by the regular watchers/listeners to FALSE NEWS UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED, of which Karl Rove (turd blossom) is a regular deceiver. Remember the figures on how high the percentages were on those believing untruths from FALSE NEWS. as compared with those getting their information from such media as you listed. Red flags go up because the (turd blossom) is known to misslead.


    Rove's lies, treasonous actions, and general sociopathy have been well-documented by hundreds of writers, lawyers, film producers, web sites, and even other Republicans.

    That Socal believes Rove saying the sky is blue is all you need to know.

    All deflections. The relevant fact is none of you or apparently your sources have discredited a single thing Rove wrote in the WSJ piece. And if you could have, you would have. Very simple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 2:42 AM GMT
    His writings are so lacking in credibility, that they're not worthy of the effort to dispute or of discussion. Put up something from a reputable writer like George Will and you'll have a discussion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 2:44 AM GMT
    realifedad said His writings are so lacking in credibility, that they're not worthy of the effort to dispute or of discussion. Put up something from a reputable writer like George Will and you'll have a discussion.

    Just admit it and come clean. You don't have the ability to dispute it anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 2:45 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    realifedad said His writings are so lacking in credibility, that they're not worthy of the effort to dispute or of discussion. Put up something from a reputable writer like George Will and you'll have a discussion.

    Just admit it and come clean. You don't have the ability to dispute it anyway.


    LOL !!!
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jan 08, 2011 2:48 AM GMT
    one can do only so much with so litlle.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3277

    Jan 08, 2011 2:53 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim saidMy question for Socalfitness is this:

    Why is the Republican party intent on suspending their own Budget Accountability requirement for the repeal of the healthcare legislation.

    Surely you agree that Congress at this very moment ought to be focussed on:

    (i) Creating private sector jobs
    (ii) Eliminating the deficit.

    As a fiscal conservative, I am frankly appalled at their hypocrisy.

    I'm not supporting the thread being hijacked, but just to make a quick comment. If you are referring to the CBO position, that's because they are responding to how the bill was written to cook the books. Paul Ryan explains it well:
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/paul-ryan-actually-obamacare-will-increase-budget-deficit-700-billion-over-10-years_526794.htm
    Recommend starting your own thread to discuss it in greater detail with whomever wants to discuss it.


    You call that "well"? A short article of unsubstantiated assertions? It's impossible to tell whether his claim is true or not given the flimsy evidence.

    You need to learn to be less credulous.


    Paul Ryan is a dumb as he is pretty. Nearly every reputable economist has demolished his plan as a deficit-increasing, social service-destroying pile of dog shit.

    And any thread that uses Karl Rove, one of the most profligate lying sociopaths to ever (dis)grace the Oval Office, does not merit an actual response.


    We cant discuss the particulars of the patients case because of privacy laws. But this hospital made it certain to infer it was from budget cuts. ( a self serving statement as they stand to be left with a unpayed bill for the care of a patient unlikely to leave the hospital)

    I would say alot of private insurances do not cover transplant for HEP C and or they cap out early to prevent it. Its an expensive operation and not a typical example. The patients in question usually have a high mortality with or without transplant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 3:28 AM GMT
    realifedad said
    socalfitness said
    realifedad said His writings are so lacking in credibility, that they're not worthy of the effort to dispute or of discussion. Put up something from a reputable writer like George Will and you'll have a discussion.

    Just admit it and come clean. You don't have the ability to dispute it anyway.


    LOL !!!


    I went and found the "editorial" The stunning and bottomless gall of this douche bag to suggest impropriety in the offering of waivers to companies and unions hat offer minimal coverage when he was screaming a year ago about the "Cadillac" plans that union members had and how unfair it was to non-union workers. And suddenly AARP is an "Obama ally?" I don't believe Rove found AARP to be objectionable when it helped Bush pass the unfunded Medicare Part D. Not to mention that, of course, AARP won't pay taxes, it's a nonprofit. And its CEO's compensation is a tiny fraction of what an executive would earn at a for-profit organization of its size.