Double-Count Medicare Savings

CBO: You Can’t Double-Count Medicare Savings

Dec 29, 2009

by John Goodman

Democrats in Congress are claiming that cuts in Medicare spending will both pay for health reform and add to Medicare’s long-term solvency. But a new CBO report says it’s either/or, but not both. [Of course, this also implies that the Medicare and Social Security trust funds are not holding anything of value — Congress has been double-counting there since the inception of those programs.] 

Five Steps to Rationing Health Care

by John Goodman

This is Scott Gottlieb on the Senate health bill:

Step One	The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services…will be given the authority to unilaterally write new rules on when medical devices and drugs can be used, and how they should be priced…when a cheaper medical option will suffice for a given problem and, in turn, when Medicare only has to pay for the least costly alternative.
Step Two	The Senate health-care bill also exempts Medicare’s actions from judicial review, taking away the right of patients to sue the government.

Step Three	Primary-care doctors who refer patients to specialists will face financial penalties under the plan. Doctors will see 5% of their Medicare pay cut when their “aggregated” use of resources is “at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization.”
Step Four	[The plan] imposes new costs on doctors who remain solo, mostly by increasing their overhead requirements [and] the plan offers doctors financial carrots if they give up their small practices and consolidate into larger medical groups, or become salaried employees of large institutions such as hospitals or “staff model” medical plans like Kaiser Permanente… The idea here is that Medicare can more easily apply its regulations to institutions that manage large groups of doctors than it can to individual physicians.
Step Five	The impact of these provisions won’t be confined to Medicare. Private insurance sold in the federally regulated “exchanges” will take cues from Medicare, since they’re both managed from the same bureaucracy.

Cash for Cloture

Dec 28, 2009

by John Goodman

This is adapted from a Dana Milbank column in The Washington Post:

The Louisiana Purchase: $100 million in extra Medicaid money for the Bayou State, requested by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

The Cornhusker Kickback:  $100 million in extra Medicaid money, this time for Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

U Con:  $100 million meant for a medical center in Connecticut for Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)

Gator Aid: A grandfather clause will allow Floridians to preserve their pricey Medicare Advantage program from cuts imposed in the other states.

Handout Montana: Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) secured Medicare coverage for anybody exposed to asbestos — as long as they worked in a mine in Libby, Mont.

Iowa Pork: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) won more Medicare money for low-volume hospitals of the sort commonly found in Iowa.

Omaha Prime Cuts: Nebraska’s Nelson won a “carve out” provision that would reduce fees for Mutual of Omaha and other Nebraska insurers.

Dakota Payoff: Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, both North Dakota Democrats, will enjoy a provision bringing higher Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors in “frontier counties” of states such as — let’s see here — North Dakota!

Hawaii Aloha: Hawaii, with two Democratic senators, will get richer payments to hospitals that treat many uninsured people.

Wolverine Bonanza: Michigan, home of two other Democrats, will earn higher Medicare payments and some reduced fees for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

What socialism means in Vermont:  Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) is getting larger Medicaid payments for his state (neighboring Massachusetts will get some, too).

show me the dollars

Where's our million's or billion's in gift money for Colo. after all we had two traitors errr I mean Senators vote for the Healthcare bill

JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL

JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL

  You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .
   Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
   Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

  Ready? Now pay attention...

• Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.
• Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
• Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
• Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
• Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
• Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
• Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.
• Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
• Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
• Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
• Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
• Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
• Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
• Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
• Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.
• Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
• Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
• Do you get it, now?

The downfall of Argentina

Don’t Cry For Me, America

posted at 6:45 pm on November 21, 2009 by directorblue
[ Congress ]    printer-friendly

In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. While Great Britain’s maritime power and its far-flung empire had propelled it to a dominant position among the world’s industrialized nations, only the United States challenged Argentina for the position of the world’s second-most powerful economy.
It was blessed with abundant agriculture, vast swaths of rich farmland laced with navigable rivers and an accessible port system. Its level of industrialization was higher than many European countries: railroads, automobiles and telephones were commonplace.
In 1916, a new president was elected. Hipólito Irigoyen had formed a party called The Radicals under the banner of “fundamental change” with an appeal to the middle class.
Among Irigoyen’s changes: mandatory pension insurance, mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income housing construction to stimulate the economy. Put simply, the state assumed economic control of a vast swath of the country’s operations and began assessing new payroll taxes to fund its efforts.
With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs, the government’s payouts soon became overly generous. Before long its outlays surpassed the value of the taxpayers’ contributions. Put simply, it quickly became under-funded, much like the United States’ Social Security and Medicare programs.
The death knell for the Argentine economy, however, came with the election of Juan Perón. Perón had a fascist and corporatist upbringing; he and his charismatic wife aimed their populist rhetoric at the nation’s rich.
This targeted group “swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated.”
Under Perón, the size of government bureaucracies exploded through massive programs of social spending and by encouraging the growth of labor unions.
High taxes and economic mismanagement took their inevitable toll even after Perón had been driven from office. But his populist rhetoric and “contempt for economic realities” lived on. Argentina’s federal government continued to spend far beyond its means.
Hyperinflation exploded in 1989, the final stage of a process characterized by “industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on increased wages, and growing state intervention in the economy…”
The Argentinian government’s practice of printing money to pay off its public debts had crushed the economy. Inflation hit 3000%, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic. Food riots were rampant; stores were looted; the country descended into chaos.
And by 1994, Argentina’s public pensions — the equivalent of Social Security — had imploded. The payroll tax had increased from 5% to 26%, but it wasn’t enough. In addition, Argentina had implemented a value-added tax (VAT), new income taxes, a personal tax on wealth, and additional revenues based upon the sale of public enterprises. These crushed the private sector, further damaging the economy.
A government-controlled “privatization” effort to rescue seniors’ pensions was attempted. But, by 2001, those funds had also been raided by the government, the monies replaced by Argentina’s defaulted government bonds.
By 2002, “…government fiscal irresponsibility… induced a national economic crisis as severe as America’s Great Depression.”
* * *
In 1902 Argentina was one of the world’s richest countries. Little more than a hundred years later, it is poverty-stricken, struggling to meet its debt obligations amidst a drought. We’ve seen this movie before. The Democrats’ populist plans can’t possibly work, because government bankrupts everything it touches. History teaches us that ObamaCare and unfunded entitlement programs will be utter, complete disasters.
Today’s Democrats are guilty of more than stupidity; they are enslaving future generations to poverty and misery. And they will be long gone when it all implodes. They will be as cold and dead as Juan Perón when the piper must ultimately be paid.

'Obamaville' sign posted near homeless camp