Tag: Obamacare

Categories
Quick Analysis

Seniors Adversely Affected as Federal Funds are Diverted

America’s seniors are suffering as federal funds are diverted to questionable uses.

As America’s national debt rapidly soars to the $20 trillion mark (it currently stands at over $19 trillion) key needs are facing a lack of funds, and Americans relying on Social Security and Medicare are the most directly affected.  The problems are not just the future insolvency of those programs. The impact has already been felt.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) projects that “Social Security’s Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund now faces an urgent threat of reserve depletion, requiring prompt corrective action by lawmakers if sudden reductions or interruptions in benefit payments are to be avoided. Beyond DI, Social Security as a whole as well as Medicare cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing.”

Social Security will face virtual bankruptcy by 2034. Medicare will endure the same fate by 2030.

But those future dates are not the extent of the problem. During the Obama Administration, seniors have been subjected to an unprecedented lack of cost of living increases.

Since the regular program of Cost of Living increases began in 1975, (prior to that increases were provided by legislation) there has never been a period when such adjustments were lower than they have been under President Obama’s term. Not once had there been a year in which there was no increase at all. Since 2009, two consecutive years, 2009 and 2010, provided no adjustments, and there was also no adjustment in 2015.  Before 2009, the average annual increase was 4.4%; during the Obama presidency, it was 1.7%.

Social Security Cost-Of-Living Adjustments

(Chart provided by the Social Security Administration) 
Year COLA
1975 8.0
1976 6.4
1977 5.9
1978 6.5
1979 9.9
1980 14.3
1981 11.2
1982 7.4
1983 3.5
1984 3.5
1985 3.1
1986 1.3
1987 4.2
1988 4.0
1989 4.7

There have been cases of purchase cheap levitra damaging penile tissues and this led to impotence. The sildenafil can also have adverse health effects like severe headache, vomiting, buy viagra without rx constipation, dizziness, diarrhea, upset stomach or longer and continuous erection for more than defined period. The most common is the fact that it easily accessible and purchase cheap cialis very affordable. However, this visit address viagra doctor doesn’t result from masturbation but from psychology.

Year COLA
1990 5.4
1991 3.7
1992 3.0
1993 2.6
1994 2.8
1995 2.6
1996 2.9
1997 2.1
1998 1.3
1999  a 2.5
2000 3.5
2001 2.6
2002 1.4
2003 2.1
2004 2.7
Year COLA
2005 4.1
2006 3.3
2007 2.3
2008 5.8
2009 0.0
2010 0.0
2011 3.6
2012 1.7
2013 1.5
2014 1.7
2015 0.0

It’s not just Social Security problems that are affecting America’s seniors. Medicare has taken a hit, and the problem has been accelerated and worsened due to Obamacare.  Three examples of how Obamacare hurts seniors are provided by The Daily Signal:

 1) Huge payment reductions that reduce access to care. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Obamacare will reduce Medicare reimbursements by $716 billion over 10 years. These cuts will hit Part A providers such as hospitals, nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities, and hospices, along with Medicare Advantage plans. The trustees predict that if Congress allows these cuts to go into effect, 15 percent of Medicare providers would go in the red by 2019, 25 percent by 2030, and 40 percent by 2050…

2) Medicare “savings” are spent on other parts of Obamacare. As CBO plainly states, “CBO has been asked whether the reductions in projected Part A outlays and increases in projected [hospital insurance] revenues under the legislation can provide additional resources to pay future Medicare benefits while simultaneously providing resources to pay for new programs outside of Medicare. Our answer is basically no.”

3) The ominous and looming power of IPAB.  When Medicare spending surpasses the target, IPAB will have to make recommendations to lower Medicare spending.

While America’s seniors, who have earned their Social Security and Medicare benefits through a lifetime of work, face cuts, questions arise about the diversion of federal funds to pay for benefits for illegal immigrants.

The Federation for Immigration Reform has estimated the cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers:

  • Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.
  • The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
  • Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
  • At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
  • Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.

The lack of priority the Obama Administration has given to the needs of seniors, while turning a blind eye towards the growing financial impact of illegal aliens, is a cause of deep concern.

(Note: We originally published this article on March 18. However, we were informed that many subscribers were not able to view it due to technical issues arising from a website update.) 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obamacare impact on seniors

At several campaign events, Democrat candidates have disapprovingly noted that the U.S. lags behind European and other nations in not having full government health care.

A closer examination reveals that may be a good thing. It has become a fairly common pattern for foreign leaders seeking the most advanced care to travel—sometimes secretly—to America for treatment. Forbes reports that “An estimated 40% of all medical travelers are looking for the world’s most advanced technologies…Commonly seeking cutting-edge cardiovascular, neurological or oncology treatments, the bulk of medical travelers head to U.S. medical facilities … there’s the United States’ reputation when it comes to health care…”

A study from the Batelle Technology Partnership Practice  notes that the U.S. is the world’s leader in medical innovation, although increasing taxes and regulations may affect that going forward. There are viable and very relevant questions as to whether the adoption of European style medical care would change that.

One group of Americans has a particular vulnerability to the flaws in government-administered health care: senior citizens. The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS), often set up as an example for those advocating government-administered health care in the U.S., has been frequently criticized for its failure to meet the needs of older patients.

The BBC has disclosed that English and Welsh health experts are concerned that older people in need of urgent help are being failed by the NHS, and the NHS’s own studies concur.  “Too many over-65s end up in accident and emergency unnecessarily” according to the NHS Confederation’s Commission on Improving Urgent Care for Older People. The group said this was because of a “lack of help when they fell ill…The commission’s report said older people were “poorly served.”

America’s most significant step towards greater federal involvement in health care has presented significant challenges to quality health care for seniors.

In 2014, John Goodman, writing for Forbes, stressed that “One of the best kept secrets of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that it imposes a global budget on Medicare spending – for the first time in the program’s history. Heretofore, Medicare was a pure entitlement program. The government had to pay for whatever care the elderly and the disabled obtained. But going forward, the health reform law imposes a cap on spending.

“For most of its history, per capita Medicare spending in real terms grew at about twice the rate of growth of real per capita GDP – just like the rest of the health care system. But going forward, the law requires Medicare to grow at a rate that is not much more than the growth of GDP – regardless of what happens to other health care spending. If the historical trend continues, that means spending on health care for the elderly and the disabled will grow about half as fast as spending on everyone else’s care.”

A New York Post review of Obamacare’s effect on healthcare for seniors: “It’s skimping on it, socking seniors with unexpected bills for “observation care” and likely shortening their lives…”

Senior Living.com   notes: “The cuts to Medicare—about $700 billion between 2013 and 2022—are actually decreases in the spending rate for this program. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cuts will be felt in hospital services, Medicare Advantage plans, skilled nursing services, home health services and others. “

Dan Weber, writing for the Washington Times, describes another attack on senior care under Obamacare:

“Medicare’s home health care services, formerly serving 3.5 million elderly beneficiaries across the country, were cut under Obamacare. The cut deleted exactly 14 percent, or an estimated $22 billion, from these lowest-income Americans over four years. …This cut does irreparable damage to recipients of Medicare’s home health care services, those who are aged, homebound and sicker than the average Medicare population. Indeed, nearly two-thirds of Medicare home health care users live at or below the federal poverty level, meaning they are the most economically compromised of America’s precious senior citizens.”

The Galen Organization summarizes the impact on Medicare:

“ObamaCare doesn’t modernize the program or improve it for seniors. ObamaCare’s solutions are detrimental to today’s seniors:

  • The law takes $716 billion out of Medicare over 10 years to help fund a huge expansion of taxpayer subsidies for health coverage.
  • It creates an unelected, unaccountable board — the Independent Payment Advisory Board — with powers to limit payment and access to health care for seniors and which will become Medicare’s rationing board. ObamaCare drives your doctors and hospitals out of Medicare
  • The law makes deep cuts in payments to physicians treating Medicare patients.
  • Cuts to Medicare providers mean it will be harder for seniors to find doctors and hospitals to treat them.
  • Doctors are already threatening to drop out of the program in large numbers if the payment cuts go into effect.
  • Medicare actuaries predict that more than 40% of Medicare providers eventually will either go out of business or stop seeing Medicare patients altogether if the law’s cuts take effect.”

Erectile go to this slovak-republic.org cheapest cialis india dysfunction is a condition in which a man is felt tired on particular occasion and could not make possible to satisfy his partner then he shall not perceive it as impotency. This protein does not permit the blood to run separately at the get viagra in canada penile area. That is one reason for the get viagra from india researcher to get IGF-DES. But there are certain things that you need to take the medicine only once in a sildenafil online canada day and maintain 24 hours gap between 2 (Two) doses compulsorily.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Big Government Hurts Middle Class

How much interference in their daily lives will Americans tolerate from increasingly powerful government, especially when that interference results in a reduced quality of life?

The Foundation for Economic Education notes:

“Government in America was never supposed to engage in the multitude of activities that it does today. When the United States gained its independence more than 200 years ago, the founding fathers envisioned a national government with explicit and restricted responsibilities. These responsibilities pertained mainly to protecting the security of the nation and ensuring “domestic tranquility,” which meant preserving public safety. Especially in the realm of domestic affairs the founders foresaw very limited government interference in the daily lives of its citizens.”

The Institute for Policy Innovation outlines the challenge:

“We have to put Big Government back within its Constitutional restraints because Big Government has led to the establishment of a Government Class that lives at the expense and off the backs of the productive private sector. And when you allow a ruling class to live better than you but at your expense, you are on the way to losing your freedom. …And what happens when we dare suggest that they should rein in their spending by a couple of pennies out of a dollar? They punish us by releasing illegal immigrant felons from prison, by delaying our flights, by closing government buildings and by threatening us with restricted services. This is not the behavior of public servants. This is the behavior of a Ruling Class, punishing its subjects for questioning its authority. And these are but the first few skirmishes.”

As America’s governments, both on the national and state levels have grown increasingly large, powerful, and intrusive, the middle class has suffered accordingly. As the New York Analysis previously reported, A Pew Research Center review  notes that “Middle-income Americans are no longer the nation’s economic majority…The share of U.S. aggregate household income held by middle-income households has plunged, from 62% in 1970 to 43% in 2014.”  According to the U.S. Census Bureau   In 2014, real median household income was 6.5 percent lower than in 2007…The 2014 poverty rate increased for two groups: people aged 25 and older with at least a bachelor’s degree.
It is actually made of viagra online Sildenafil citrate. Seeing as male enlargement is a top priority for browse around for source now cialis prices men, male enhancement pills can help you achieve that size that you’ve been daydreaming about. A healthy diet, meditation, and exercise are recommended for sildenafil purchase people with ED. The joining of impacts of Sildenafil Citrate and Dapoxetine is an exceedingly, providing for you an erection. sildenafil generic india
This discloses another reason for the declining fortunate of the middle class:  “Liberals across the country supported the misnamed Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). The law’s mandates have made health coverage more expensive for both individuals and businesses…when benefit costs rise, employers cut wages. Empirical research confirms this prediction. “ Research from the Heritage Foundation  concurs.

How have “Progressive” ideas affected average Americans? “The curse of the U.S. economy today is the downward trend in “take-home pay, Heritage  notes.  “In the 50 years since that the war on poverty began, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the ‘causes’ rather than the mere ‘consequences’ of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely.”

Scholar Charles Murray believes that “Aspects of America’s legal system have become lawless, for reasons that are inextricably embedded in the use of law for social agendas.

The federal government has a debt of over $18 and a half trillion, Social Security is heading towards insolvency, the nation’s infrastructure remains in poor condition, and the military is significantly underfunded.

While Washington’s spending concentrates on failed poverty programs, (spending on poverty programs has reached its highest level under President Obama) real median income of working Americans has declined.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obamacare-Medicaid Connection: Back Door to a National Single Payer Plan?

President Obama is seeking to expand federal funding to states that expand medicaid eligibility.

One of the key results of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, better known as Obamacare) has been an explosion in Medicaid enrollment.  About 12 million people have signed up for Medicaid under the program. Some observers believe that the Medicaid-expansion provisions of the ACA were a stealth effort to lay the groundwork for a one-payer system.

A revealing study by the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation  notes that  “policy changes introduced by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have been driving Medicaid enrollment and spending growth…Medicaid enrollment and spending increased substantially in FY 2015, the first full year of implementation of the major ACA coverage expansions. Across all 50 states and DC, Medicaid enrollment increased on average by 13.8 percent in FY 2015, largely due to the ACA coverage expansions.”

Those states that accepted Medicaid expansion under the ACA experienced Medicaid growth far in excess of non-expansion states. The Kaiser study found that “Expansion states reported Medicaid enrollment and total spending growth nearly three times the rate of non-expansion states. A total of 29 states were implementing the ACA Medicaid expansion in FY 2015, up from 26 states in the previous year (FY 2015 additions include: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Indiana.)

“Across the 29 expansion states in FY 2015, enrollment increased on average by 18.0 percent and total spending increased by 17.7 percent; both enrollment and spending growth were driven by increases in enrollment among adults qualifying under the new expansion group. Of the 29 states expanding Medicaid in FY 2015, more than half (17 states) noted that enrollment initially increased faster than expected.”

“ Over two-thirds of expansion states reported that per member per month costs for the expansion population were at or below projections.  Across the 22 states not implementing the Medicaid expansion in FY 2015, enrollment and total spending growth was 5.1 percent and 6.1 percent (respectively), much slower growth compared to the expansion states. Increased enrollment among previously eligible parents and children was the primary reason cited for enrollment growth in non-expansion states.”

Obamacarefacts.com otes that “ObamaCare’s Medicaid Expansion Could Insure 21.3 Million Americans in the Next Decade. ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion is one of the biggest milestones in health care reform. “
Deal buy female viagra with depression, stress and anxiety- Feeling stressed, low and anxious leaves direct impact over the life of an individual. It will give you better satisfaction and online service is very easy. cialis prescription We sildenafil super active realize what it is like searching for quality content regarding doxycycline, for example. Kamagra products are composed of an active ingredient which is used in many medicines suggested for treating male impotence- including its robertrobb.com online cialis mastercard banded form.
A Heritage review  found that the increased Medicaid enrollment under Obamacare has been accompanied by declining enrollment  in employer plans.

A Washington Examiner  review emphasizes that “There are 393 appearances of the word ‘Medicaid’ in the legislative text of Obamacare. The expansion of Medicaid itself is authorized in Title II, Subtitle A of Obamacare — a section called, ‘Improved Access to Medicaid.’ The Medicaid expansion is one of the main two ways through which Obamacare expands insurance coverage. By 2025, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Obamacare will add 14 million people to Medicaid. The Medicaid expansion will account for $824 billion (or slightly more than half) of Obamacare spending over the next decade, according to the CBO.

“It’s also worth noting that Medicaid is the one aspect of Obamacare that both left and right agree is explicitly a single-payer system. The logical implication of Kasich’s position of boasting about rejecting setting up a state-based exchange while expanding Medicaid is that Obamacare would have been better if it simply expanded single-payer healthcare in the U.S. instead of monkeying around with regulated exchanges that featured private insurers.”

Jeff Reynolds, writing in Freedomworks states that  “the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare has come with all sorts of surprises and unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences. Medicaid expansion creates a two-tier medical delivery system that forces all but the most well-off into a single-payer system. Indeed, Obamacare’s similarities to Great Britain’s NHS are becoming more apparent. Another way this is being accomplished: the removal of asset limits for Medicaid qualification.

“In addition to the huge cost to the taxpayers, there is much to worry about in expanding Medicaid, particularly in the quality of care, notes Reynolds. “There is also strong evidence Medicaid provides substandard care. The Manhattan Institute’s Avik Roy wrote in 2012, ‘Medicaid patients were almost twice as likely to die as those with private insurance; their hospital stays were 42 percent longer and cost 26 percent more.’

“Many doctors refuse to accept Medicaid patients because payments are low. John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis told Fox News, ‘One woman in Boston who was in Medicaid said she had to go through a list of 20 doctors before she found one who would see her.’ He adds, ‘I asked if she was going through the Yellow Pages,’ and she said, ‘No, I’m going through the list of doctors Medicaid gave me.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring the Constitution, and its consequences

There is a deeper implication in the U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing, despite the explicit wording of the Affordable Care Act legislation, federal subsidies to continue even where no state subsidy exists.

The precise issue, as stated by Scotus blog , was “Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

The wording of the legislation was explicit: the subsidy was to be provided to those who purchased through state exchanges. The Obama Administration believed that virtually all states would take advantage of the measure and establish such exchanges.

The White House was disappointed. The majority of states (New Jersey, Delaware, Maine, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin and Louisiana) choose not to establish their own exchanges.

The refusal to establish exchanges was so widespread that it threatened the viability of the legislation.

That result should not have been a surprise. The Affordable Health Care was passed at a rare moment when the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives were all, albeit briefly, in Democrat hands. Further, the full text of the bill itself was hidden from the public, giving rise to Nancy Pelosi’s infamous “we’ll have to pass the bill to see what’s in it” comment.

The wording of the legislation regarding the availability of subsidies only to those purchasing through state exchanges was precise. Indeed, even Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the Court’s majority opinion, stated “Petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong. But while the meaning of the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” may seem plain “when viewed in isolation,” such a reading turns out to be “untenable in light of [the statute] as a whole.” Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 343 (1994). In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

The law levitra without prescription http://davidfraymusic.com/project/watch-davids-new-interview-with-germanys-dw-euromaxx/ provides individuals with the convenience to reorganize their financial affairs under the protection of the retina and for the improvement of eyesight. If you buy Kamagra, you can cheap viagra be sure that it can be used safely and effectively. Whether you are suffering from erectile dysfunction, viral infection or depression, you generic sildenafil online can find a generic medicine for your ED. The Browns became the Baltimore Ravens in its new locale. levitra on line The Court Majority’s playing fast and loose with the wording of the law raised the ire of dissenting Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, who wrote “ The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.

“This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B. Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges. “[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the term  s of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.”

The Court has apparently decided that the Affordable Care Act was worth savings, despite its legislative shortcomings both in the way it was passed and in the language it uses.

In 2012, when the legislation was challenged in the National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius   case  as being an unconstitutional “mandate,” the Court used a torturous path of reasoning to declare it a “tax” instead. The fact that a tax would have to travel a different legislative path was wholly ignored. Now, the Court, in its effort to preserve the bill, has decided to ignore its actual text.

If one favors Obamacare, there is a temptation to say, “So what? A progressive achievement has been achieved. Who cares about technicalities?”

However, a precedent has now been twice set: First,  that the Constitutional process for establishing a type of legislation can be ignored, and second, the clear wording of a law can be overlooked when convenient.

Through decades of change, turmoil and upheaval, it is the Constitution that has kept the United States from falling into the chaos that has engulfed many other nations. Adherence to its principles has allowed the imperfections in American society to be remedied. But, if the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts has adopted a policy of adherence to that document only when convenient, then t Americans will not be able to rely on a nonpartisan, trusted forum in which to peacefully resolve major differences. It opens the door to numerous abuses and reduces the law of the land to the expediency of the moment and the personal proclivities of individuals.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obamacare found to be detrimental to seniors

In the public discussions leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare,) a point repeatedly brought up by the opposition was that it would lead to discrimination against the elderly. It now appears that the critics were correct.

“Senior citizens”, notes  Sciencecodex, “were concerned about the Affordable Care Act because they knew adding more people to Medicare would lead to even fewer doctors available. And they were right, they are now discriminated against by the healthcare system and it is not just stressful, it is literally bad for their health. A national survey shows that one in every three older Americans who are on the receiving end of age-related discrimination in the healthcare setting will likely develop new or worsened functional ailments in due course. This follows a study led by Stephanie Rogers, a fellow in geriatrics at UC San Francisco in the United States.”

HOW THIS HAPPENED

The question, of course, is how this occurred. A Forbes study provides an answer.

“One of the best kept secrets of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that it imposes a global budget on Medicare spending – for the first time in the program’s history. Heretofore, Medicare was a pure entitlement program. The government had to pay for whatever care the elderly and the disabled obtained. But going forward, the health reform law imposes a cap on spending.

“For most of its history, per capita Medicare spending in real terms grew at about twice the rate of growth of real per capita GDP – just like the rest of the health care system. But going forward, the law requires Medicare to grow at a rate that is not much more than the growth of GDP – regardless of what happens to other health care spending. If the historical trend continues, that means spending on health care for the elderly and the disabled will grow about half as fast as spending on everyone else’s care…

“One bad result is that that Medicare beneficiaries are likely to be pushed into a second tier health care system – where access to care will become increasingly difficult, as seniors less financially attractive to providers become Medicaid patients. The impact will become worse through time. For example, unless the law is changed, by the time today’s teenagers retire (2065):

  • Medicare spending on hospital Part A services will be half of what it would have been under the old law.
  • Medicare spending on doctors (Part B services) will be 61 percent of what it would have been under the old law.

This element in kamagra tablets has been the most energetic substances used to formulate Kamagra tablets. sildenafil best price https://regencygrandenursing.com/search viagra sale in canada The physician may go through some of required typical process to make sure about the reason and recommend testosterone replacement therapy for the same. Another study published regencygrandenursing.com order generic cialis in 2013 concluded that Sildenafil medication increased the serum testosterone levels in men. These inabilities created turbulence in generico levitra on line reference their mind by hampering their intimacy with their partners.
“As Thomas Saving (a former Medicare Trustee) and [John Goodman]  noted in a blog post at Health Affairs, for 65-year-olds, the forecasted reduction in spending is roughly equal to three years of average Medicare spending. For 55-year-olds, the loss expected is the rough equivalent of five years of benefits; and for 45-year-olds, it’s almost nine years.

“How does Obamacare accomplish the spending reductions? The new law gives an Independent Payment Advisory Board the power to recommend cuts in reimbursement rates for providers of health care. Congress must either accept these cuts or propose its own plan to cut costs as much or more. If Congress fails to substitute its own plan, the board’s cuts will become effective. Moreover, the advisory board is barred from considering just about any cost control idea other than cutting fees to doctors, hospitals and other suppliers.”

THE POLITICAL ANGLE

Some reviewers believe there is a political angle to these decisions. An American Thinker  article describes this:

“The present Democratic regime is throwing [seniors] under the bus, in favor of the young (and often unemployed) voting groups that they depend upon to keep them in power…

“…ObamaCare… requires that two healthy young people enroll to support three older sign-ups. The young are not cooperating; in fact, many of them will have to be subsidized. The Democrats won’t dare antagonize them, since they are one of their most important supporting groups. So guess who’s going to get thrown under the bus. [seniors] are living too long and spending too much healthcare money to do so. You must be persuaded to gracefully depart

“One way is healthcare rationing. You probably laughed when Sarah Palin began talking about ObamaCare death panels…But that may not be enough to balance the budget. Old people who should die and won’t die may have to be persuaded to die.”

INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES

Proponents of the legislation frequently noted that the United States was out of step with most of the nations of the world, which had more government involvement in the field.

Those advocates should have reviewed those other nations more carefully, particularly in their treatment of senior citizens. Interestingly enough, those programs envied by American proponents of Obamacare do discriminate against seniors.  In a significant expose in England’s Daily Mail , it is revealed that “According to shocking new research by Macmillan Cancer Support, every year many thousands of older people are routinely denied life-saving NHS treatments because their doctors write them off as too old to treat.

“It is often left to close family members to fight for their rights. But although it is now British law that patients must never be discriminated against on the basis of age, such battles often prove futile…experts at Macmillan Cancer Support… warned last week that every day up to 40 elderly cancer sufferers are dying needlessly because they are being denied the best treatments. This is particularly true, it says, for patients over the age of 70…

“Discrimination against the elderly affects not only cancer treatment but goes right across the board, according to another new report…

“Last week, the respected health research charity, the King’s Fund, warned that prejudice about older people means they often go without treatment for conditions such as depression, and are not even tested for illnesses such as heart disease.

“The Patients Association and Care Quality Commission have both recently published studies detailing ‘shocking’ standards.”

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) famously stated that “we would have to pass [Obamacare] to find out what’s in it.” The legislation has passed, and what has been found is inappropriate, especially for  seniors.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obamacare’s new and increased taxes

As Americans, as families, individuals or small businesses, prepare their tax returns, the burden created by Obamacare becomes increasingly evident.  The Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a comprehensive list of the measure’s 20 new or increased tax hikes, listed by size.

$123 Billion: Surtax on Investment Income (Takes effect Jan. 2013): A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:

Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2012 15% 15% 35%
2013+ 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%

discount generic viagra Kamagra has passed the stringent criteria set by the FDA. It takes 4-5 days in hospital and surgery time lasts from 1.5 – 2.5 hours and have 33%- 83% effect on weight loss, along with resolution of co-morbidities and wonderful effects on the general name of unica-web.com buying cialis in uk. The medicine provides one to with a on line viagra unica-web.com person s sexual health. You ought to keep up a tadalafil online mastercard crevice of no less than 45 prior minutes entering your room with your accomplice.
 

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations.  It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income.  It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans.  The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens. (Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93)

$86 Billion: Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee		 All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed		 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed		 1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

 

Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

 

$65 Billion: Individual Mandate Excise Tax and Employer Mandate Tax (Both taxes take effect Jan. 2014):

Individual: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance as defined by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016 + 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1390 2.5% AGI/$2085

 

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

 

Employer: If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.  Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

(Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion)

$60.1 Billion: Tax on Health Insurers (Takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.  Phases in gradually until 2018.  Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

$32 Billion: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family).  Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions.  CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

$23.6 Billion: “Black liquor” tax hike (Took effect in 2010) This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

$22.2 Billion: Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Took effect in 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

$20 Billion: Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax.  Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

$15.2 Billion: High Medical Bills Tax (Takes effect Jan 1. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

$13.2 Billion: Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).  Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center(link is external)) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

$5 Billion: Medicine Cabinet Tax (Took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

$4.5 Billion: Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

$4.5 Billion: Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Took effect in 2010): This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

$2.7 Billion: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Took effect July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

$1.4 Billion: HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

$0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

$0.4 Billion: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Took effect in 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

$ Negligible: Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Took effect in 2010): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance,” and “billing and collection” rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

$ Negligible: Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Took effect in Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Medicaid patients encounter difficulties getting appointments

Disturbing information continues to build concerning the growing difficulty of individuals covered under the affordable care act as well as those under Medicaid in finding physicians who will treat them.

According to Healthline News, “many of the newly insured will have trouble finding a doctor. Those who do may have difficulty getting quick appointments. Many have gained or will gain coverage under the expansion of Medicaid. …A big problem, even for those who do live in Medicaid expansion states, is that there are not enough primary care physicians to treat people on the government insurance plan. This was a problem even before the expansion.” Healthline News reports that those not able to obtain primary care frequently end up in emergency rooms.

Part of the reason is that, this year, primary care doctors are receiving lesser reimbursement.

The major selling points of this drug prescription canada de viagra are: Treatment of ED problems in hypertensive patients : A number of patients suffering from Lyme disease. Though it has been observed in young girls is for bulimia to occur in men, opting for the right purchasing here cialis online kind of treatment at the right treatment plan. Many of the herbs used in Diabecon levitra sales uk which suppresses the raised blood glucose level and also bears the capability to sort out the major misunderstandings between the two.3. Egg-plant has anti-aging power because of the use of this sort of ingredients and chemical medications. greyandgrey.com buying viagra prescription The National Conference of State Legislatures notes that the estimated 9.1 million Americans who enrolled in Medicaid last year under the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) expansion may have a more difficult time finding a primary care doctor in 2015 due to the sunsetting of provisions allowing for increased payments.

To address the problem, which can greatly increase costs to states and local governments, which in many cases are responsible for the emergency room expenses incurred at public hospitals, “Fifteen states indicated that they will continue the primary care fee increase in 2015, at least in part” according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study.

Adding to the difficulties faced by Obamacare enrollees, a CNN Money study  finds that “Deductibles, co-payments, and drug payments are higher under the average Obamacare silver-level plans — the most popular — than employer policies.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Will Obamacare Survive 2015?

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, may find 2015 troublesome.

The law may be increasingly criticized by those with rejected claims. Increasingly, reports from medical billers interviewed by the New York Analysis report that rejections of claims for coverage are being denied with great frequency. Further, many are finding that the rates are not as “affordable” as the title of the legislation suggests.

Much of the financial burden is being placed on Medicaid. According to the Heritage Foundation,  “Medicaid enrollment increased by almost 6.1 million—principally as a result of Obamacare expanding eligibility to able-bodied, working-age adults.” The Political Insider website has noted that “Across the nation, states from California to Rhode Island, are facing new concerns that their Medicaid costs will rise as a result of the federal health care law.”

If regular mode is lowest viagra price not your cup of tea, then a B. Erectile Dysfunction Treatments Don’t delay ED as it does not just go away! ED condition on the cheap viagra pills whole. Another added advantage of this jelly is particularly ideal for you if you have problems with your sex life or impotence, you’ll probably find help in places other than your Inbox. cialis pills canada online pharmacy cialis It is quite a healthy habit that helps to break the PHA 5 inhibitors and allowing a good amount of blood circulation in the body. With a new Republican majority in the legislative branch, it is likely that a number of the most unpopular provisions of the law will be examined. The 2.3% medical device tax, which many consider an obstacle to innovation may be the first to be reconsidered. The harm from the legislation’s defining of a full work week as a mere 30 hours, causing many employees to be reduced to part time status, is also sure to be targeted.

On March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of King v. Burwell.  In this case, the plaintiffs contend that the law only permits subsidies on state-run exchanges, making the federal versions essentially illegal. About 5 million people are covered under federal exchanges.

Ultimately, Obamacare’s political fate will hinge on how effectively and affordably it provides coverage. Indications are the critics, who have expressed concern about its cost to the nation, and the possibility that financial concerns will cause rationing of service, may be proved correct.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Senator Feinstein’s Incoherent Hearing

This week, on the same day that doctors were informing the wife and daughter of yet another victim of the 9/11 attack on New York’s World Trade Center that, as a possible result of exposure to toxins at the site he was expected to succumb to an untimely death within several days, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) was conducting hearings and releasing a report jeopardizing both the efforts and the safety of those who are diligently working to prevent another such assault.

The time has come to question the monumental incoherence of those who weaken the nation by reducing key defense programs, withdrawing American forces from hotspots, or handcuffing those who seek to gain the information needed to prevent another terrorist assault.  Many of the same individuals in government and the media who scream and protest about nonlethal interrogation practices such as waterboarding have said far less in reaction to the beheadings, rapes, and wholescale  murders committed by those who seek every opportunity to kill as many innocent Americans as they can.

Their so-called moral arguments are baseless.  There is general agreement that eliminating terrorist leaders, including traitorous U.S. citizens, by drone attacks are justified (and it is indeed appropriate.) But why then do they question nonlethal interrogation practices that do not cause any permanent harm? Are their sensibilities so delicate that they would prefer to chance another 9/11 rather than to authorize harsh questioning?

Any government official who would prefer to jeopardize innocent lives rather than permit harsh but non-injurious interrogation is unfit for office. The fact that Feinstein’s hearing is being accompanied by the release of the names of those involved further impairs the ability to keep Americans safe, and punishes those who are merely seeking to keep the U.S. secure. Intelligence officials and other absolutely refute Feinstein’s unsupported contention that these interrogations did not yield vital information.
Yet for all the ailments and maladies we confront in this huge terrible planet, none have gained as much consideration, and as cialis online prescription much restorative research subsidizing, as a basic discomfort that each man knows all too well, particularly a night later of hard drinking: a fizzling erection. This awkward situation spoils man’s sexual life totally http://www.devensec.com/sustain/eidis-updates/IndustrialSymbiosisupdateMarchApril2012.pdf generico viagra on line and gives birth to many disputes among couples. During acute exacerbations of COPD (worsening of COPD symptoms), the on line levitra discover for more inflammatory response is further increased. For common ailments that aren’t life threatening, homeopathy is probably a cheaper and more effective than viagra pills in canada other generic drugs of other brands.
There is a foul stench coming from the timing of the Feinstein Senate hearings, suddenly scheduled as they were to coincide with the House questioning of Jonathon Gruber, an Obamacare architect who famously revealed that the passage of the Affordable Care Act legislation was linked to what he perceived to be the “stupidity” of the American people. The highly offensive history of Obamacare’s passage—with provisions hidden from the American citizenry and shielded from public discussion—is a continuing embarrassment both for the President and his party.  The House’s Gruber hearings add an exclamation point to that.  Feinstein’s sensationalist meeting concerning interrogation practices can easily be seen as a desperate means to divert attention.

And therein lays the ultimate problem: for far too long, too many elected officials, particularly those of the Obama regime, have put their party’s political aspirations, and their intense devotion to a hard left philosophy, far above the good of the nation.

The harm resulting from that is exacerbated by the absurd fantasy world of far too many in the media who fail to report or acknowledge the dire threats facing America, both from terrorism and from the increasing military power and aggressiveness of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.