The Obamacare Hydra


Pages: 1 2

Coburn and Barrasso explain that “(t)his means that the administrator of CMS is the sole individual in the entire federal government with the power to decide whether or not models tested negatively impact seniors’ quality of care and meet the financial requirements spelled out in law.”

This “innovation” super-czar would be allowed to tinker behind closed doors — and then impose whatever experiments the “innovation center” chooses without any checks or balances on the methods or results. Moreover, at least two other sub-offices within CMS (subject to normal open meetings and open records rules) have already been tasked with researching payment and delivery models. Health care blogger Tevi Troy at NationalReview.com warns: “The ‘innovation’ center appears to be one more way in which the health-care law is going to interfere with the practice of medicine, and one that physicians should start paying more attention to.”

It’s not just physicians who need to pay attention. Every taxpayer has a stake. At the end of the month, this shadowy agency will start doling out $1 billion in grants to payment experiment groups and data-tracking system builders. Sounds like yet another pipeline for political payoffs and Chicago-style boodle that will result in less patient autonomy, fewer health care choices, more government intrusion and lower-quality care.

Final diagnosis: The Obamacare beast won’t die until it’s eradicated completely, root and branch.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Pages: 1 2

  • davarino

    I am not free if you can tell me what I have to buy, or that I have to buy anything.

    Yaaa a bunch of kids in their 20's now have health insurance. Big deal, they will never use it and dont care, but it sounds good.

  • Schlomotion

    I find no mention in this article of The Heritage Foundation, which is the true author of Obamacare. Obama is not a medical professional, nor does he run an HMO. You can find the Heritage Foundation article here:
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1990/07/

    • sedoanman

      "…The Heritage Foundation, which is the true author of Obamacare."

      From the report in your referenced link: "Todays tax laws make the place of work virtually the only group that Americans can join to have the bargaining power and the economies of scale to obtain affordable insurance. Under the Heritage proposal, by contrast families could join other groups as the basis for insurance, with the group administrators perhaps charging a management fee Forming Groups. The group presumably would be an organization that the family felt would act in its interest, such as a union, a church, a group representing minority workers, or women business owners. It could also be a group of individuals with special medical needs, such as diabetics, needing plans with particular services. In each case the individual would gain the economies of scale and bargaining power of the larger group, and he or she could choose a group that arranged the desired package of insurance and services at the best price.Today a worker and his family normally must accept the plan services selected by the employer, whether or not they are ideal."

      This report is over 20 years old. Congratulations. You have surpassed øbama in blaming someone else. øbama care is government run health care. What the Heritage Foundation proposed is NOT øbamacare because it would be run by private, non-government organizations. Can't you read your own reference?

      • Schlomotion

        It did endorse mandatory enrollment, so it is still corporatist swindle. Frequently, old reports are the basis for current strategy in our slow-moving government. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" was written in 1996. Nevertheless, it formed much of the basis for the Bush Administration's subversion of American law. I am not a Democrat, I am not a Republican.

        • kentatwater

          A completely disingenuous characterization of the Heritage plan, on many levels.

          The Heritage proposal posits a mandated minimum level of coverage, managed by a head of household, not employer, and obtained independently, or through some other voluntary association, such as a church. The mandated purchase would be offset by tax credits.

          I don't necessarily endorse the Heritage plan, but these attributes are in stark contrast to Obamacare. Both your predicate and conclusion are invalid.

          But you knew that already, of course.

          • Schlomotion

            The mandated purchase is real money. The tax credit is fake money. I would never accept forced purchasing in exchange for a counterfeit rebate on other real money that was confiscated from my earnings. So to distinguish it from Obamacare simply because more CEOS benefit from it is hairsplitting.

          • kentatwater

            Non-sequitor. The proposals are not the same, therefore, attributing authorship of the Obama plan to Heritage is laughable.

            hairsplitting

            Yes. Details get in the way for sweeping, and false, generalizations, don't they?

          • Schlomotion

            Your argument is that because two things are not identical, they are not sufficiently similar to compare. The fact remains that The Heritage Foundation proposal IS the parent document to Obamacare, and it is similar enough to trace the origin. One can indeed find negligible differences, but that is a mere parlor game. The Heritage Foundation invented Obamacare.

            Furthermore, Gingrich endorsed the individual mandate. Romney signed it into law, and Santorum backed Specter who voted it into cloture.

          • kentatwater

            Your argument is that because two things are not identical, they are not sufficiently similar to compare.

            Show me where I made that argument. It sure doesn't sound like me, because I know the purpose of comparison, is to determine equivalence, or to identify differences.

            I also know that to characterize your conduct as comparison is dishonest, because you predicate your argument, such as it is, with, and I quote:

            The Heritage Foundation, which is the true author of Obamacare.

            The fact is, there are significant differences in the two proposals, and it is those differences which, if I may say, make all the difference. A cursory examination is all it takes to see that under the Heritage plan, there would be no need for the notorious "exemption" fiasco, which is favoring unions and businesses "too big to fail." Now that is cronyism.

            The Heritage Foundation invented Obamacare.

            A gratuitous assertion may be just as gratuitously denied.

            Denied.

            Furthermore, Gingrich endorsed the individual mandate. Romney signed it into law, and Santorum backed Specter who voted it into cloture.

            None of which supports your gratuitous assertion. And though these candidates are all flawed, as all humans are, they are all, to a man, better than the current burden we bear.

          • Schlomotion

            We will have to agree to disagree, as I have discovered that my account is now being monitored as a result of my opinions.

          • kentatwater

            I will agree that your attempts to equivocate aren't going to go unchallenged in this forum.

            As to being monitored for your "opinions," pull the other one.

  • kentatwater

    Non-sequitor. The proposals are not the same, therefore, attributing authorship of the Obama plan to Heritage is laughable.

  • digdigby

    Just think of the Death Panels as a Human Cash for Clunkers.

    • intrcptr2

      Cash for Croakers, I think you mean.

  • 080

    It is not widely observed that the determinations of the IPAB or death panel has nothing to do with science. Science is what was afforded Dick Cheney. The doctors using the best of medical science recommended a heart transplant. That is science. To have a panel state that statistics indicate that Cheney was too old to have to undergo the expenses of such an operation has nothing to do with science. Furthermore, those who are ranting against the operation are perilously close to Hitler's minions when they are deciding which life is worthy of life. Cheney wasn't worthy? What about those with Downs Syndrome. Or what about those with very low IQs. Or criminals?

  • Sage on the Stage

    Obamacare? First and foremost, its a job-killer. It eliminates the tax deduction for company prescription drug benefits. If big companies can't deduct the money they reimburse employees with, they have to take a loss. When companies take losses, they frequently respond by firing people. Second, Obamacare(aka the PPACA) has a provision that, under the individual mandate, exempts those that join "health-sharing ministries." Also, anyone that doesn't participate in Social Security is exempt, as are Scientologists and the Amish. Third, there is a real estate tax, pertaining to the sale of homes, hidden in it. This amounts to 4% of the value of the house. REPEAL THE WHOLE THING. Period.