MEDICARE FOR ALL DESTROYS MEDICARE

The first thing that Medicare for All would do is eliminate Medicare, along with all other health plans, and misleadingly use that name to create a government health care system. That’s like announcing an iPhone-for-All government plan that takes away everyone’s iPhones, and replaces them with tin cans that have an Apple logo slapped on them. It’s a massive health care robbery that adds insult to injury.

Medicare for All doesn’t expand Medicare. It eliminates Medicare for those who have it.

READ MORE

The $32 Trillion Question That ‘Medicare for All’ Advocates Will Never Answer

Health care for a family of four costs $28,000. Do they really propose to raise their taxes by that much? Then just what do they propose?

READ MORE

WHY DO DEMOCRATS ROMANTICIZE SOCIALIST SLAVERY?

Who should pay for your health care? For your education? For your retirement?

“Socialism,” we are told by the pollsters, is gaining in popularity at least the romanticized versions of it. It would be a world without poverty where people have everything they need, and all are equal.

The fact that such a system has never existed anywhere ever is attributed to either bad motives or incompetence of those who were supposed to bring it about. Sweden and many other democratic countries who flirted with it for a short period of time all backed away as they quickly recognized its failings.

Advocates for socialism have a problem naming the specific person who is supposed to pay their medical, school, and food and shelter bills. They often say the “rich” — as if there were millions of random rich people floating around just waiting to have their wealth plucked by some student or snowflake.

As an experiment, the next time you are in a “group” or classroom of people, and someone in the group is promoting socialism, ask them to assume that the “group” or class is the full population, and from that group ask the socialist to identify the specific person by name who they think should pay their medical bills. The named person is almost certain to be unhappy with the idea.

As children, most of us lived under socialism — that is, our parents paid the bills and provided for us. But good parents let their children know that this arrangement does not go on forever, and at some age both daughters and sons are told that they are supposed to get off the sofa in front of the TV, get a job and provide for themselves.

Jeff Bezos is the world’s richest man (at least until his divorce is finalized), and some claim that he is not a particularly nice person — but that is not illegal. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and many other well-known Democrats want to make Mr. Bezos their slave — despite the fact that he supports them with his Washington Post.

Now they don’t want to make him a 100 percent slave because they know that “would be wrong,” as well as unconstitutional — so, according to Miss Ocasio-Cortez, a mere 70 percent slave will do (the income tax rate proposed by Miss Ocasio-Cortez and others).

When socialists are interviewed by members of the press, they are prone to say things like “every American deserves free health care.” In fact, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York has said that even illegal immigrants deserve free health care.

Somewhere, I have missed the explanation of why some deserve free health care to be paid by hard-working taxpayers under the threat of asset seizures and prison time.

If we are all equal, as the socialists tell us, why are some involuntary slaves to others, at least part time? Fortunately, I don’t have to figure this out because, back in 1945, the English author George Orwell did it for me and everyone else in his classic book “Animal Farm.”

The American Founding Fathers, who had a good grasp of history, understood the dangers of unrestrained democracy — yet now there is the general view that everyone should vote, no matter how uninformed they may be about history, the issues of the time and even the names of the candidates and their positions on the issues.

The socialists sell “free stuff” — in reality, the theft of labor from others, which has great appeal to the uninformed and the lazy.

Restrictions on who was allowed to vote, based on property ownership or even literacy, were over time viewed as unfair and eventually abolished, leading to the current crop of elected officials — no more needs to be said.

My fantasy solution is that before being allowed to register to vote, potential voters must present evidence that they have read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and are able to understand the English language.

They also should give evidence of having an understanding of the themes of “Animal Farm” and F.A. Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom (1944).” For those who have not learned to read in English, listening to the documents and books on tape versions will suffice.

And for those who can neither read nor understand spoken English, they should not vote in U.S. elections until they learn the fundamentals of the language.

This fantasy proposal is not a panacea for all that ails the political system, but it would reduce the number of uninformed and lazy voters — yet, not discriminate against anyone who truly wishes to spend the time to prepare to vote.

And for those who say this fantasy proposal is too much of a burden — somewhere between 100 million and 200 million people were killed by their own socialist governments during the 20th century.

That is the real burden of what the ignorance of socialism has wrought.

Richard W. Rahn is chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth and Improbable Success Productions.

READ MORE

Healthcare...from the trenches

I didn't include this man's personal experience in the following summary...but I really hope you will read the whole story.

The non-profit has found that their average recipient only needs one to two years of assistance, ranging from $5-15,000 in total. That is all it takes to keep these families from financial ruin.

“Some of the families would then be able to support their own costs after the disease was managed. Others were able to move and find employment that provided them with better health insurance,” Kuhn said.

Kuhn says PSI never had an insurance company reject their cost-sharing payments until 2014, when the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services under former President Obama issued a ruling allowing insurance companies to prohibit their insureds from accepting charitable support (from non-profits, including churches).

Kuhn then took the fight to Washington, D.C., and was able to convince Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota to put forth legislation in 2015 with the backing of 146 cosponsors. He then was able to get Cramer to send a letter in 2017 signed by 183 members of Congress — Republicans and Democrats — to Health and Human Services asking the agency to overturn the ruling. The effort was unsuccessful, as was another in 2017, but Kuhn is trying once again to rally lawmakers behind his cause.

Cramer is trying once again to introduce legislation asking for a repeal of the rule. Cramer put forth a measure in October 2017, a bill that currently has roughly 47 cosponsors.

READ MORE

The most risky thing Trump will do and it's replacing Obamacare

Please take particular note of the last paragragh!

I've been following Robert Laszewski for several years. Many of his Health Care Policy & Marketplace Review posts are also cross-posted at Forbes.

I've posted his resume below first in order to show how important his qualifications are and then excerpted two things from his two most recent posts regarding the "replace" part of "repeal & replace" which includes the transition period...a VERY risky period for Trump, Republicans, and America and everything hangs on "us" getting this right!!!

I made this as short and clear as I could--read the full articles if you want. Obamacare was a "first" and getting us out of this mess will be a "first"--it's all uncharted territory. The fines, the rising monthly premiums, the soaring deductibles, and the damage to our healthcare system (shortages of doctors, unmanageable loads of regulations and paperwork, etc.) might not seem as bad to people as a collapse of the entire system would if all this goes South!

Robert Laszewski - Health Care Policy & Marketplace Review

I am one of a kind having spent 20 years in the health insurance marketplace and 20 years inside the Beltway. I ran two health insurance businesses before coming to Washington, DC to start my own health care policy and market consulting business. Over the last 20 years my clients have been the people who run insurance companies, hospitals, and physician practices. A long time ago, I made all of the money I will ever need and I keep doing this because I want America’s health care system to work for everyone.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Excerpt from Obamacare Repeal, Transition And Replace: The Republicans Have A Tiger By The Tail!

But will there be any insurance companies in the exchanges come 2018?

The Obamacare individual insurance market was an unsustainable place for health plans before the Republicans won the 2016 election and reiterated their promise to end it.

Most carriers are now losing their shirts on their Obamacare exchange business. Some of the biggest carriers are exiting in 2017. Others decided to hang in for at least another year hoping the new Congress and President would fix it in 2017. Now, with the Republicans promising to kill Obamacare, there is little hope Obamacare will get better for the carriers in 2017 or 2018. Most in the insurance industry believe their losses will only increase as the sick stay in the pool and fewer healthy people, having been promised something better by Republicans, hold off on paying the big premiums and having to face the big deductibles in the current plan.

The health plans are committed for 2017. But no health plan is committed for 2018.

Faced with an expected worsening bottom line going into 2018 we cannot assume the insurers won't bail. What insurance company CEO will be willing to sustain the tens of millions, or in some cases hundreds of millions, of dollars in losses they now face, and expect to continue to face, to keep the dying Obamacare program afloat as a favor to Republicans?

And remember, about half of the current Obamacare compliant market does not get a subsidy and these folks are also at risk of not finding a carrier in 2018. If the health plans get out of the health insurance exchanges they will likely either get out of the entire individual market or dramatically increase the premiums for the off-exchange market. It would appear that many of these often self-employed folks outside the exchanges voted for Republicans over their anger at Obamacare's big premiums and deductibles and could be faced with fewer or even worse individual health insurance choices in 2018.

Excerpt from "Republicans Are Being Awfullly Naive" About the Transition Period in "Repeal and Replace"

[The following are responses to an interviewer's questions.]

What they have to do, and I don’t think they’ll do, is take the defunding bill they use to repeal Obamacare and reestablish the risk corridors and reinsurance fund. They have to do it inside the budget bill; otherwise they’ll need 60 votes.

I think what they have do is reestablish one of the parts of Obamacare that Republicans have hated the most, the so-called insurance company bailout, because if they don’t, they’re going to have a catastrophic result come 2018.

To have an orderly transition, I think Republicans need to reimplement the risk corridors by February or March. That is the only chance they have. I don’t think there is a single Republican member of Congress who has thought about this. I’m reading all these quotes and they’re completely blind to the fiasco on the individual market that they’re about to create.

KAISER - TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF RISK AND MARKET STABILIZATION PROGRAMS IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT:

The ACA’s risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridors programs were intended to protect against the negative effects of adverse selection and risk selection, and also work to stabilize premiums, particularly during the initial years of ACA implementation:

Table 1: Summary of Risk and Market Stabilization Programs in the Affordable Care Act

Thoughts are welcome and please forward to anyone who can help or is interested!

And now: The healthcare plan that we should have had in the first place!

Republicans will say to Democrats, "Help us create the new insurance system or be responsible for the consequences." Some are saying the Democrats won't cooperate. Here is why they will. In 2018, there are 23 Democratic and two Independent Senators (who caucus with the Dems) that will be up for reelection––a great many in states that Donald Trump won last night! There is a clear mandate here to replace Obamacare. If these Democrats fight it and that arguably results in millions of people thrown off their coverage they will do so at their peril.

The best news here is that defunding and then replacement of Obamacare could ironically set the table for the first real bipartisan legislative effort in a very long time. The one we should have had in the first place.

READ MORE

Everything Will Be Fine As Soon As The Obamacare Market 'Stabilizes'--Not

FORBES - Robert Laszewski:

Goodness, this family already pays $11,760 a year for a plan with a $13,700 deductible and it could go up to $13,971 in premium next year based upon the 18% rate increase.

This is a “stable” health insurance market and there is no reason to “despair?”

What are these people thinking?

READ MORE

Americans need a bipartisan fix to our health care system. Here's how to do it.

Just a few common sense and practical steps can turn what we have now into a more bipartisan approach to health insurance reform.

Democrats need to admit Obamacare is unpopular because it is not meeting the needs of too many people.

Republicans need to admit we don't need to "repeal and replace" Obamacare with another complex ideological health insurance reform plan to make our system work a lot better.

Both sides should be willing to build on a list of bipartisan ideas they can both embrace.

THESE ARE WORTH READING - CLICK ON ARTICLE BELOW: USA TODAY: Customer-friendly Obamacare fixes: Column by Robert Laszewski 7:24 p.m. EST January 14, 2015

Robert Laszewski is president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, LLC (HPSA), a policy and marketplace consulting firm specializing in assisting its clients through the significant health policy and market change afoot. Before forming HPSA in 1992, Mr. Laszewski spent nine years as a chief operating officer of a health and group benefits insurer. The majority of Mr. Laszewski’s time is spent being directly involved in the marketplace as it comes to grips with the health care cost and quality challenge.

HEALTH CARE POLICY and MARKETPLACE REVIEW

No Senator Cruz, Donald Trump does NOT want Single Payer health care.

I have been studying health care policy for 20 years now. I am also a multi-state licensed health insurance broker who continues to operate in an increasingly less competitive and more bureaucratically controlled system on both the federal and state level. During the last 20 years I have seen a lot of changes in the U.S. health care system. Some of them good (HIPAA) and some bad (Reagan’s EMTALA) the PPACA a.k.a. “Obamacare” etc.

During the last two decades I have read everything I could get my hands on pertaining to health care policy. I also spent the longest two weeks of my entire life reading the PPACA – Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act – shortly after it was passed into law on March 23, 2010. I have also appeared on television,radio and written expert commentary on health care policy on this blog and for professional business journals around the country. If there is one thing I know it is health care policy and if there is another thing I know it is a lie when I hear it.

I have bit my tongue long enough. As a delegate for Senator Ted Cruz I have been placed into a difficult and increasingly uncomfortable position and now I havehad enough!  Continuing to support Senator Cruz after he repeats incorrectly and ad nauseum that “A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for Obamacare“ and, that “if you vote Donald Trump, you vote for Bernie Sanders-style socialized medicine.“ Or even worse that Trump, Clinton and Sanders “have the identical position on health care” has forced me into a crisis of conscience. These are statements that even the left leaning Politifact has correctly identified as FALSE.

There are two things I detest above all others. Lies and intellectual laziness. There are far too many of my fellow “Cruzers” who either refuse to do the necessary research on Mr. Trump’s health care proposals or are simply too lazy to simply read his actual policy proposals as outlined in both his books “Time To Get Tough” from 2011 and his latest book “Crippled America” from 2015. Therefore, I have linked the pertinent sections pertaining to Mr. Trump’s actual health care policy proposals below.

READ MORE

Everybody Has To Pay This New Obamacare Tax

THE DAILY CALLER:

This year the tax will cost individuals more than $500 in extra premiums according to one actuarial estimate. Families who purchased insurance will see their premiums go up by more than $700.

The new tax also hits senior citizens who rely on Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage. It will land on the nation’s poor who depend upon Medicaid-managed care programs.

READ MORE

HEALTH FREEDOM VS. OBAMACARE FASCISM

...there are three basic propositions of Health Freedom legislation:

1. Health Care is so incredibly expensive in America because of government intervention into the medical marketplace.

2. Health care costs can only be radically reduced by an equally radical reduction of government regulations and subsidies.

3. Just as health care costs will be radically reduced, both the availability and the quality of health care will be radically increased by such a reduction of government intervention.

Given this, here are:

Ten Specific Legislative Means By Which Health Freedom Can Be Achieved:

READ MORE

Why The Affordable Care Act Isn't 'Here To Stay'­­­­--In One Picture

FORBES:

For health insurance reform to be both politically and financially sustainable Obamacare will have to be materially changed and I have no doubt, that when the 2017 rates are known to all of the people going to the polls in late 2016, there will be an undeniable mandate to change it come 2017–no matter who wins the election.

READ MORE

The ACA’s overall impact on employment, however, will arguably be larger than that of any single piece of legislation since World War II.

Much of the ACA’s tax effect resembles unemployment insurance: both encourage layoffs and discourage people from returning to work.

Starting this year, the United States’ working population will face three major employment disincentives resulting from the very benefits the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides: (1) an explicit tax on full-time work, (2) an implicit tax on full-time work for those who are ineligible for the ACA’s health insurance subsidies, and (3) an implicit tax that links the amount of available subsidies to workers’ incomes.

A new study published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University advances the understanding of how much these ACA taxes will reduce overall employment, and why. It concludes that the reduction will be nearly double that projected by previous analyses. Labor markets ultimately will reduce weekly employment per person by about 3 percent—translating to roughly 4 million fewer full-time-equivalent workers.

Below is a brief summary of this important update. Please see “The Affordable Care Act and the New Economics of Part-Time Work” to read the entire study and to learn more about author Casey B. Mulligan, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago.

READ MORE

Fixing the VA requires first breaking labor's grip, and the unions are already girding for that fight

WSJ:

How Democrats put their union allies before the well-being of veterans:

Big Labor's VA Choke Hold

NYT: HOSPITALS CUTTING CHARITY

Hospital systems around the country have started scaling back financial assistance for lower- and middle-income people without health insurance, hoping to push them into signing up for coverage through the new online marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act.

READ MORE

Two New Studies Raise Red Flags on Obamacare

The Fiscal Times:

When the next round of premium increases hits over the summer, and the market for employer-provided health insurance undergoes the same kind of massive disruption as the individual market did over the last six months, the debate over the honesty and integrity of the Obama administration may hit new levels of intensity.

READ MORE

Supreme Court may invalidate Obamacare sometime before June, 2015

"...an inevitable Supreme Court review in the coming term, with a decision assured no later than June 2015 and possibly earlier given that federal funds are quite possibly being disbursed illegally."

Powerline:

The little case that could, Halbig v. Sebelius, is one of four lawsuits challenging the government’s authority to pay subsidies under Obamacare to anyone enrolled in the federal exchange. The case just took a giant step forward in oral argument last week before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

READ MORE

Affordable Care Act Scam named Better Business Bureau’s 2013 ‘Scam of the Year’

The Better Business Bureau announced its “Top 10 Scams of 2013.” Leading the pack, believe it or not, was the Affordable Care Act Scam, which most would refer to as the Obamacare scam.

As much as he may want to differ, CBS late night host David Letterman didn’t invent the idea of a “top 10 list” — it’s been around for a long time, and that includes the 102 year-old Better Business Bureau, which has published a top 10 scam report for years.

READ MORE

CALIFORNIA: OBAMACARE TURNING CANCER PATIENTS AWAY

There are two reasons patients will be turned away: one that President Barack Obama hid, and one that he lied about.

READ MORE

NOTICE OF TERMINATION

With a deep sense of sadness, I must inform you that I will no longer serve as a physician for Aetna patients under the terms of our contractual agreement, which you most recently unilaterally changed...

Read this shocking letter here!