Other than that …

Ok, so what planet are these people from? Beats me – but truly we will be talking about health care from now until the national bankruptcy.

Here’s the article by our friend “By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ETWho writes such mush at such an early hour? Or is the hour why it’s such mush? Beats me!

My commentary line by line:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up. I thought newspaper “writers” were supposed to be “neutral experts”? Or at least talk to some before we “found out what’s in it”? Can you say dereliction of duty? Sure you can.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls. HHS is the “neutral expert”? Surely Ricky has some ‘esplainin’ to do! Who’s the neutral anything here? Plus, we were told 47 million have no health care. What of the other 13,000,000 folks? Beats me!

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. “Twin goal”? A singular goal for the plural twin? Hmm. Where’s the second twin? Only one goal is mentioned — “controlling runaway costs.” Plus, by Ricky’s own words – an increase doesn’t control costs – does it? Or could it? And who’s spending? Oh yeah, the government’s! So the goal was to “bend the costs downward” and instead it’s going to rise 1%! Not just falling short, but going in the opposite direction!

That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned. “Could get bigger”? Surely Ricky ain’t serious, is he? No government program on earth ever shrunk costs – it’s the antithesis of government spending! Surely he had heard from many that the cuts in Medicare were not going to happen?

It’s a worrisome assessment for Democrats. Well, ain’t that the understatement of the year! The bill is so unpopular that some 60% wanted it repealed before it was even voted on!

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. “Could”? What’s with the conditional-subjunctive when it was made clear by 60% of the people that it would be a liability? We said no – they did it – now it could be … hahahaha

The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors. “Possibly”? Laughably sad – hospitals and “other institutional providers” — who are – what, unmentionable? – of course, if hospitals are in the red they will either Raise Costs or Cut services (aka, rationing!) What other outcomes are conceivable? That’s what happens when journalist-writers don’t study economics. “Into the red” is pushing bankruptcy – and a bankrupt hospital must jeopardize health care.

The report from Medicare’s Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. Nice to know that the government doesn’t represent the government. And the administration’s position is “hope” but reality seems to be quite afield from their hopes.

White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analysis have been too pessimistic and low ball the law’s potential to achieve savings. Oh, now I get it – reality is pessimism – the numbers clash with the potential – and how will the hope achieve savings? Why, through Hope alone!

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade. You’se got to be kidding – 2020 – the unrealistic Medicare cuts will become realistic 10 years hence? More taxes is cost control? Surely you is kidding me! No? Or just lame-brained? And the commission can only recommend either rationing (Obama said it will not lead to that) or higher taxes (which is not only not “cost control” but Obama specifically said it won’t raise taxes.) So what else is there? Beats me!

“During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage,” wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary. What effects? No effects are mentioned. And the bill doesn’t go into effect until 20142010 to 2019? what is Foster talking about? – and how did anyone conclude that buying more of something will cost less? Oh that’s right – opponents of the bill said exactly that it wouldn’t!

“Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare … reductions is doubtful.” Foster’s office is responsible for long-range costs estimates. “Reductions is doubtful”? Grammar is the first casualty for sure, both Ricky’s and Foster’s! Not to mention that the sentence, ellipsis included doesn’t even make sense.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama’s 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation’s health care system. What remake of health care is this? It’s a remake of government control of health care – for not one new doctor, nurse, procedure, instrument, or hospital is in the bill.

“A trillion dollars gets spent, and it’s no surprise — health care costs are going to go up,” said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he’s concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors. Camp is “concerned” that cutting the money spent will “undermine” care? – let’s see, um – cuts in spending leads to cuts in care? Or cuts in spending leads to the same care? Or cuts in spending leads to more care? This is why most if not all Republicans have got to go to.

In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions. She’s nuts! Spending cuts are unrealistic – cutting premiums means either the money is cut from the spending or is brought in from some other cuts – or from rationing care, or more taxes. What else could it be? Does this woman comprehend economics? Doubtful, really really doubtful.

“The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law,” the statement said. AH, hopey dopey change smokey – a mere statement does nothing to alter the mathematics – it’s absurd.

Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Divided alright – bipartisan in opposition!

Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. 85% already have health insurance. Those who don’t either don’t want it for some reason or another – or they are already eligible for either Medicare or Medicaid but won’t access it for some reason known to themselves.

Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. So folks paying their premiums would now get their premiums paid for by someone else? Sweet! At least while there’s any rich folks left to pay. Given Obama’s plans that’s a declining number for sure. Or taxes will go up across the board – as in his VAT idea – which flies in the face of his no taxes on the under $250,000 group (I.e. nearly all of us.) And Medicaid is an entitlement that Must pick up low-income people, not would pick up more.

Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health. More hopey dopey change and smokey – for this means either rates will go up for everyone, or the insurers will go broke, or the amount of care will decline (aka rationing.)

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren’t clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. What utter crap – who cares if we spend more than other developed nations? Not to mention that there is rationing in those other nations. Not to mention that their care is demonstrably worse, their lines longer, and – to top it off – the innovation which is part of our 2.5 Trillion/per person pays for the rest of the nations – which piggy back on our innovations, procedures, drugs and implements and instruments – in a sense we have been subsidizing Europe for decades! Just as we do their military. Astoundingly – they keep losing people to us – Euro-immigration is as high as it’s been for decades – and we ain’t moving back!

At the outset of the health care debate last year, [I thought it was a 100 years ago?] Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes. What on earth does this mean? It must mean less health care – if $2.5 Trillion covers 250,000,000 then for $2.5 Trillion to cover 300,000,000 people than everyone must take a cut in the health care they receive. When hope overrides math one wonders how dumb the president is. Or he’s a liar, out and out fraud and nincompoop.

Well you can read the rest of this mush – I can’t go on – really, it’s so astounding that it blathers for itself .. blah blah blah – problems – wrong assumptions – unrealistic parameters – wrong headed ideas – poppycock – piffle – puffery – all wrapped up in hope and dreams so opposite to the reality that again – what planet are these people on:

The report found that the president’s law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.

The report’s most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces “a very serious risk” of insolvency.

Who knows for how much more this “writer” could write what’s wrong with this woefully wacky law? From here to bankruptcy, I’m sure. Basically a reporter who touted, pushed and promoted this boondoggle now “writes” – with ultimate irony – the whole thing faces: “A very serious risk of insolvency.”

Other than that, this law is just peachy!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: