Sebelius Tries To Blame GOP For Coming ObamaCare Failures

[petegz28]

Health Care: As Democrats grow increasingly worried that ObamaCare will explode on the launch pad just as midterm elections get going, the Obama administration seeks to pin blame on Republicans. Good luck with that.

Earlier this week, Health and Human Services head Kathleen Sebelius admitted that she didn't realize how complicated getting ObamaCare off the ground would be.

Sebelius complained that "no one fully anticipated" the difficulties involved in implementing ObamaCare, or how confusing it would be with the public.

She wasn't talking about the massive and impossible task of imposing central planning on one-sixth of the nation's economy.

Instead, she was trying to find a way to blame Republicans for ObamaCare's failures when the inevitable problems start emerging.

Rather than say "let's get on board, let's make this work," recalcitrant Republicans have forced her to engage in "state-by-state political battles," Sebelius said at a Harvard School of Public Health forum. "The politics has been relentless."

So let's see if we get this. Democrats shoved an unpopular, expensive, ill-conceived and poorly written law down the country's throat with no Republican support, and without bothering to see whether states would want to take on the thankless and costly task of helping the feds implement it.

And now that many of these states are rebelling, it's the Republicans' fault?

Sebelius' fellow Democrat, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, had a more accurate take on the problem the administration faces: the law is "probably the most complicated piece of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress" and "if it isn't done right the first time, it will just simply get worse."

Rockefeller, like a growing number of Democrats, realizes that ObamaCare is shaping up to be a political disaster for the party next November.

The influential Cook Political Report noted earlier this month that almost all of the Democratic insiders they talked to "voiced concern about the potential for the issue to hurt Democrats in 2014."

And just what could explain these concerns?

Maybe it's because even Sebelius now admits that ObamaCare will force insurance claims up 32%.

Or possibly it's because, despite endless assurances that the insurance exchanges would be ready on time, the administration had to delay for a year a key feature meant to give small business a choice of health plans.

Or because neither Sebelius nor the states have provided evidence they can get the rest of the exchanges ready by Oct. 1, when ObamaCare's open enrollment begins.

Or perhaps Democrats' fears stem from state insurance commissioners warning of a rate shock once ObamaCare's "community rating" rules and benefit mandates start. Or from rising evidence the law is hurting job growth as small businesses try to avoid its costs.

None of this, mind you, has anything to do with Republicans. And if the GOP were smart, it'd be focused on making sure that, come next November, the public knows that, too.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz2QDFgsvjD
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm saying that you're clueless about the cause of rapidly rising health care costs.

If by clueless, you mean....choosing to focus on causes which are IGNORED by the industry, conservative politicians, and especially Republicans, who are pre-occupied with the more self-evident "causes" that are demagogued ad nauseam by the industry…consumer ignorance, aging boomers who are becoming old and fat, industry “consolidation” and decreased competition (monopolies—in many places,) misguided tax breaks, an outdated employer based insurance model, new drugs and high tech procedures—because they’re “neat,” , fee-for-every-"service" fraud, billing fraud, “defensive” medicine cowardice, frivolous litigation, ridiculous malpractice law, systemic redundancy, etc.

Yeah, I guess I’m clueless then. What I’m really clueless about though is how we have arrived at a point in modern civilization when most consumers can tell you how much it costs to buy ANYTHING, yet no one can seems willing to estimate the real cost of a medical procedure…until they send you the bill. Really? Wow. That and the whole…”we can cure you, or keep you alive—but it’s gonna bankrupt you!” thing. I’m really clueless about that one…

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

If by clueless, you mean....choosing to focus on causes which are IGNORED by the industry, conservative politicians, and especially Republicans, who are pre-occupied with the more self-evident "causes" that are demagogued ad nauseam by the industry…consumer ignorance, aging boomers who are becoming old and fat, industry “consolidation” and decreased competition (monopolies—in many places,) misguided tax breaks, an outdated employer based insurance model, new drugs and high tech procedures—because they’re “neat,” , fee-for-every-"service" fraud, billing fraud, “defensive” medicine cowardice, frivolous litigation, ridiculous malpractice law, systemic redundancy, etc.

Yeah, I guess I’m clueless then. What I’m really clueless about though is how we have arrived at a point in modern civilization when most consumers can tell you how much it costs to buy ANYTHING, yet no one can seems willing to estimate the real cost of a medical procedure…until they send you the bill. Really? Wow. That and the whole…”we can cure you, or keep you alive—but it’s gonna bankrupt you!” thing. I’m really clueless about that one…

Mods please change MR Kooter's name to MR.Clueless

[Comrade Crapski]

Well that settles it then. Kotter says it's all the Vichy Regimes fault, and I believe him.

[HonestChieffan]

Zero for Kansas. Zero minus for all. Stupid twat.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Zero for Kansas. Zero minus for all. Stupid twat.

Enough about your wife. What are your thoughts about Sebelius??? Other than the teabagging talking points...I mean. Heh.

[Comrade Crapski]

It's all the teabaggers fault.

[Comrade Crapski]

Buried deep within President Obama’s $3.77 trillion budget is a tiny little proposal to increase Medicaid spending by $360 million. In a budget as large as this one, $360 million is scarcely worth mentioning. It amounts to less than one-hundredth of one percent of total outlays. But this 0.01 percent is worth mentioning, because it proves the president’s health-care law will not work.

While many uninsured patients pay their medical bills, the Medicaid program offers “disproportionate share hospital” payments to hospitals that treat lots of patients who don’t.

The president’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act cuts Medicaid’s DSH payments, beginning with a $360 million cut in 2014. The theory went like this: When the PPACA begins reducing the number of uninsured, hospitals won’t need those subsidies. In his budget, however, President Obama proposes to increase Medicaid DSH payments by $360 million in 2014, effectively rescinding next year’s cut. This deceptively small item has far-reaching significance. With this proposal, President Obama has admitted that:

1. The PPACA is not likely to reduce uncompensated care in 2014.

A central argument in favor of the PPACA was that it would end the “hidden tax” that uninsured individuals impose on the insured.

Supporters claimed that hospitals shift the cost of treating the uninsured to private insurers, which increases premiums for a typical family by more than $1,000 — a wild overestimate, but I digress. They argued that the PPACA’s Medicaid expansion and health-insurance “exchanges” would extend coverage to some 30 million previously uninsured people, thereby eliminating that hidden tax and enabling Congress to reduce DSH payments.

The president’s budget shows that not even he buys that argument now. It states: “To better align DSH payments with expected levels of uncompensated care, the Budget proposes to begin the reductions in 2015, instead of 2014.” That is, the president expects that the Medicaid and exchange subsidies won’t eliminate that $360 million of uncompensated care next year. And it’s not because some states are choosing not to expand Medicaid — he proposes to rescind the cuts even in states that are expanding it.

2. The PPACA won’t reduce the deficit.

Rescinding the DSH cuts demonstrates why the health-care law’s supposed “deficit reduction” is a mirage.

http://nationalreview.com/article/34...ging-admission

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

Buried deep within President Obama’s $3.77 trillion budget is a tiny little proposal to increase Medicaid spending by $360 million. In a budget as large as this one, $360 million is scarcely worth mentioning. It amounts to less than one-hundredth of one percent of total outlays. But this 0.01 percent is worth mentioning, because it proves the president’s health-care law will not work.

While many uninsured patients pay their medical bills, the Medicaid program offers “disproportionate share hospital” payments to hospitals that treat lots of patients who don’t.

The president’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act cuts Medicaid’s DSH payments, beginning with a $360 million cut in 2014. The theory went like this: When the PPACA begins reducing the number of uninsured, hospitals won’t need those subsidies. In his budget, however, President Obama proposes to increase Medicaid DSH payments by $360 million in 2014, effectively rescinding next year’s cut. This deceptively small item has far-reaching significance. With this proposal, President Obama has admitted that:

1. The PPACA is not likely to reduce uncompensated care in 2014.

A central argument in favor of the PPACA was that it would end the “hidden tax” that uninsured individuals impose on the insured.

Supporters claimed that hospitals shift the cost of treating the uninsured to private insurers, which increases premiums for a typical family by more than $1,000 — a wild overestimate, but I digress. They argued that the PPACA’s Medicaid expansion and health-insurance “exchanges” would extend coverage to some 30 million previously uninsured people, thereby eliminating that hidden tax and enabling Congress to reduce DSH payments.

The president’s budget shows that not even he buys that argument now. It states: “To better align DSH payments with expected levels of uncompensated care, the Budget proposes to begin the reductions in 2015, instead of 2014.” That is, the president expects that the Medicaid and exchange subsidies won’t eliminate that $360 million of uncompensated care next year. And it’s not because some states are choosing not to expand Medicaid — he proposes to rescind the cuts even in states that are expanding it.

2. The PPACA won’t reduce the deficit.

Rescinding the DSH cuts demonstrates why the health-care law’s supposed “deficit reduction” is a mirage.

http://nationalreview.com/article/34...ging-admission

Ouch.

[Bewbies]

Max Baucus joins in the fun

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...implementation

"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," he told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a Wednesday hearing. "You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet."

He pressed Sebelius to explain how her department will overcome entrenched misunderstandings about what the healthcare law does.

"Small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect," Baucus said.

Citing anecdotal evidence from small businesses in his home state, Baucus asked Sebelius for specifics about how it is measuring public understanding of the law.

"You need data. Do you have any data? You've never given me data. You only give me concepts, frankly," he said.

Sebelius said in response that the administration is not independently monitoring public awareness of specific provisions but will be embarking on an education campaign beginning this summer.

Baucus is facing a competitive reelection fight next year, and Republicans are sure to attack him over his role as the primary author of the healthcare law.

emphasis mine

[Comrade Crapski]

Stupid bastards:


Reid: More funding needed to prevent ObamaCare from becoming 'train wreck'
By Alexander Bolton - 05/01/13 05:45 PM ET

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says he shares colleagues’ concerns that the Affordable Care Act could become a “train wreck” if it’s not implemented properly.

Reid warned that people will not be able to choose health insurance plans on government health exchanges if federal authorities lack the resources to set them up and educate the public.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...#ixzz2SAKozW1r
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[Johnny Vegas]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

Max Baucus joins in the fun

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...implementation




emphasis mine

and now Baucus is retiring. Probably doesn't want to deal with the headache come 2014.

[notorious]

This is how the government works now. Pass something based on cooked books, then expand it.


And the gun grabbers wonder why we are against anything being passed.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by notorious

This is how the government works now. Pass something based on cooked books, then expand it.


And the gun grabbers wonder why we are against anything being passed.

Solid post.

[Comrade Crapski]

Bravo, moonbats. Bravo.

[stonedstooge]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

Stupid bastards:


Reid: More funding needed to prevent ObamaCare from becoming 'train wreck'
By Alexander Bolton - 05/01/13 05:45 PM ET

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says he shares colleagues’ concerns that the Affordable Care Act could become a “train wreck” if it’s not implemented properly.

Reid warned that people will not be able to choose health insurance plans on government health exchanges if federal authorities lack the resources to set them up and educate the public.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...#ixzz2SAKozW1r
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

I'm certainly not going to give back the $2500 per year I'll be saving in premiums!