Dear Wild Bill sounds good to me. Go!!! Andrew
A new report by the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics at National Right to Life warns that one of the Obamacare provisions that ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Americans would discover if Congress passed the bill is that some seniors will not be allowed to spend as much as they wish on their health care.
The extreme position was revealed in a special report by the NRLC titled “The Affordable Care Act and Health Care Access in the United States,” which analyzes four fundamental policy areas of Obamacare.
It finds several ways that the federal health care law “will drastically limit access to life-saving medical treatment under the law.”
“These four areas include: the ‘excess benefit’ tax coming into effect in 2018, the current exclusion of adequate health insurance plans from the exchanges, present limits on senior citizens’ ability to use their own money for health insurance, and federal limits on the care doctors give their patients to be implemented as soon as 2016.”
Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, said that “for pro-life Americans concerned about the impact on innocent life – both born and unborn – the policies of Obamacare couldn’t be worse.”
“Americans are just as concerned with the law’s impact on our ability to access life-saving medical treatment for ourselves, our family members, and our loved ones as with Obamacare’s funding of abortions. Obamacare is bad medicine for America,” she said.
Pelosi famously said Congress should pass the law so Americans could find out what was in it, and its unpleasant surprises have been shocking citizens ever since.
The study finds, for example, that the “Independent Payment Advisory Board,” which starting next January is supposed to make “recommendations to slow the growth in national health expenditures,” will set “quality and efficiency” standards for hospitals and demand that doctors meet government minimums in order to contract with any qualified health insurance plan.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/feds-to-cap-what-citizens-can-spend-on-own-healthcare/#TQrPl4dXw23cbd8W.99
Originally posted on Twitchy:
Earlier this afternoon, the House held its 50th Obamacare repeal vote, voting 250 to 160 in favor of a one-year delay on the individual mandate penalty. And that really, really stuck in Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s craw:
The nerve of those Republicans (and 27 Democrats), trying to “undermine” a law as pure and solid as Obamacare! Don’t they know it’s “working”?
House Republicans are again taking aim at the Obama administration for its failure to enforce laws passed by Congress.
Republicans serving on two committees have introduced legislation that would allow the House or Senate to authorize a lawsuit against the Obama administration.
The ENFORCE the Laws Act is the latest GOP response to complaints that President Obama is willfully ignoring or altering federal law. As examples, Republicans have cited the several delays to ObamaCare provisions and Obama’s 2011 decision to delay deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants who have not committed a crime.
Of all the problems with the Affordable Care Act, two fundamental flaws in President Obama’s self-described “legacy” are that the legislation unconstitutionally originated in the Senate, and that it violates the Tenth Amendment — the final provision of the Bill of Rights. Hereafter, the “Affordable Care Act” will be called “Obamacare,” not for derogatory reasons but because the official name of the bill misrepresents what it is.
Lawsuits challenging Obamacare on both issues are currently pending. Sissel v. HHS and Hotze v. Sebelius challenge the law under the Origination Clause, and are likely on their way to the Supreme Court, with stops currently at the D.C. Circuit and the Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals respectively. In Sissel v. HHS, 44 members of Congress signed an amici curiae brief in support of the plaintiff-appellant’s position. Another lawsuit in Wisconsin, Association of American Physicians & Surgeons v. IRS, presents a Tenth Amendment frontal assault on what remains of the ACA after the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius.
This is the story of Julie Boonstra a mom from Dexter MI who is being bullied by Rep Gary Peters (D-MI) who is her Congressman. Peters wants to now run for the US Senate. He has written TV stations in MI threatening to take theri licence under the guise of misleading advertising. Please watch and let me know what you think. Andrew
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius lashed out Tuesday at the governors in five Southern states, and Rick Perry (R-Texas) in particular, for “playing politics with people’s lives” by refusing to expand Medicaid under ObamaCare.
Speaking in an interview on HuffPostLive, Sebelius called their decisions “an outrage,” and urged the constituents of those states to pressure their legislatures and let their governors know this is “not acceptable.”
“The worst situation is in the states that so far have not decided to take up the offer of the fed government to expand Medicaid … in the five states with the highest level of uninsured African-Americans, four out of five of those — Texas, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida — are not expanding Medicaid,” she said.
“That’s an outrage,” she continued. “It should be a conversation in every community, in every town hall, in every church group and every PTA program to put pressure on the governors and legislatures to say, this is not acceptable.”
Sebelius singled out Perry and Texas, arguing that 23 percent of Texans have no health insurance at all.
“The governor declared three years ago that he wanted no part of the Affordable Care Act; he was not going to participate,” she said. “They’ve put up barriers to giving people accurate information, and it has nothing to do with the constituents who live in that state. It’s really about his own ideological battle with the president of the United States, and unfortunately in this case, people’s health is at stake, and people’s lives are potentially at stake.”
Buried beneath the avalanche of recent news reports about the latest Obamacare-mandated funding cuts to the Medicare Advantage (MA) program is a related but far more disturbing story — the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken a major step toward rationing medications to the elderly. Since passage of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, seniors enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug program have been guaranteed access to “all or substantially all” of the drugs in several classes of pharmaceuticals. President Obama’s health care bureaucrats, however, have proposed removing three of these classes from the “protected” list.
The New York Times reports, “The administration’s proposal would remove the protected status from… immunosuppressant drugs used in transplant patients, antidepressants and antipsychotic medicines.” Yes, you read that correctly. These are drugs used to facilitate organ transplants and treat patients suffering with mental illness. The Times names a few of the medicines in question: “They include many well-known drugs, such as Wellbutrin, Paxil and Prozac to treat depression, and Abilify and Seroquel to treat schizophrenia.” There can be little doubt that the next step CMS plans to take will involve a decision not to cover the most expensive of these medications at all.
This is why CMS represents this as a cost-saving measure. But the amount of money these changes will save is virtually nothing by Medicare standards. Moreover, as Yevgeny Feymanwrites in Forbes, “The likely reduction in therapeutic choices could result in higher health care costs in other parts of the program, like Part A (for hospital care) or Part B (for physician services).” Further undermining the CMS cost-saving claim is that, due to the very market features that make it unpopular with Beltway bureaucrats, the Medicare prescription drug program may be the only federal entitlement in history whose costs have come in below its initial CBO projections.