If the new health care bill is so great, why are Obama, Congress and staffers who wrote the bill EXEMPT from its provisions? That's one of those surprises (on page 158 of the legisAtion) Nancy Pelosi told us we would have to pass the bill to find out.
Senator Grassley said, "It’s pretty unbelievable that the President and his closest advisors remain untouched by the reforms they pushed for the rest of the country. In other words, President Obama’s health care reform won’t apply to President Obama,” Grassley said. “Last December, the effort to apply any new law to administration political leaders was rejected by the Senate Majority Leader."
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
What a surprise - Obama and staff didn't read their own bill
Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.
Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.
Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.
However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.
Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.
Obama and his staff were spewing misinformation in order to pass this bill. They claimed the only reason the publc didn't like the bill was becausse opponents were spreading misinformation. But now that everyone has time to read the bill (now that it has passed and Pelosi says we can find out what's in it), the only confirmed lies and misinformation came from Obama's camp.
Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.
Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.
However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.
Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.
Obama and his staff were spewing misinformation in order to pass this bill. They claimed the only reason the publc didn't like the bill was becausse opponents were spreading misinformation. But now that everyone has time to read the bill (now that it has passed and Pelosi says we can find out what's in it), the only confirmed lies and misinformation came from Obama's camp.
We borrow the money to pay the INTEREST on the national debt
Brinker Comment: There has been a lot of talk about the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections on the health care legislation. Usually, there is positive talk about the CBO putting forth reasonable projections that are more reliable than what the partisan politicians will say. But Bob said he did some research on the CBO, and back in 1965 on the passage of Medicare under President Johnson, the CBO made a long-term projection that by 2010 the annual cost of Medicare would be $60 billion. How much did it really cost this year? It is not even close! The 2010 cost of Medicare will come in at $480 billion. That is 8 times greater than what the CBO projected. Bob asked rhetorically what kind of cost overruns will come up on this new entitlement program as 32 million people are being brought into healthcare under this proposal. Bob said he is guessing the cost overruns will be massive. If the CBO was off by a factor of 8 for Medicare, how much will they be off here? Bottom line, we are looking at incurring massive government debt over the long term with this legislation. And we don’t need that right now. We are already up around $12 trillion and they are talking about $20 trillion debt in the decade. All of this national debt has to be financed. We must borrow the money to pay the interest.
Stupak
Excerpt from an article by Tommy De Seno
For the past several Rep. Stupak (D-Mich.) was busy stamping his face into the concrete of pro-life history, taking the principled position that he would not vote for health insurance reform so long as federal funding would be used for abortions.
Until he did vote for it.
And since it was widely reported that Stupak controlled 6 votes and the bill passed by 3, we can call this new law "Stupakcare."
For the past several Rep. Stupak (D-Mich.) was busy stamping his face into the concrete of pro-life history, taking the principled position that he would not vote for health insurance reform so long as federal funding would be used for abortions.
Until he did vote for it.
And since it was widely reported that Stupak controlled 6 votes and the bill passed by 3, we can call this new law "Stupakcare."
Monday, March 22, 2010
Big Brother Government Takeover
I wrote this a few days ago but hoped I wouldn't post it if the government takeover failed.
If the health care bill is passed, our economy may be headed for the tanker on the fast track. The bill creates all kinds of new taxes. This will cause large companies to leave the US and small companies to fold. There will be even more unemployment. The deficit will increase. The health bill will not reduce the deficit, the CBO figures are a farce. They are cutting medicare by half a trillion $ (that is 500 billion $) supposedly to stop the shortfall in medicare funding but they are also "borrowing" that money to pay for the health care bill. This is double counting the $. If you use it for the health care bill, then it will not cover the shortfall in medicare funding. If you use it for medicare, then it is not available to pay for the health care bill which supposedly will cover 30 million more people but there is already a doctor shortage. It is estimated up to a third of the doctors will leave the profession if this bill is passed so good luck finding a doctor. Obama has created government jobs which increases the burden on the taxpayers to fund those jobs. Obama's actions have not spurred the creation of private sector jobs. The Fed has been holding interest rates at 1 %. When interest rates rise, the deficit will explode. US bonds are already about to be downgraded. We need to prepare for a depression the likes of which we have never seen.
If the health care bill is passed, our economy may be headed for the tanker on the fast track. The bill creates all kinds of new taxes. This will cause large companies to leave the US and small companies to fold. There will be even more unemployment. The deficit will increase. The health bill will not reduce the deficit, the CBO figures are a farce. They are cutting medicare by half a trillion $ (that is 500 billion $) supposedly to stop the shortfall in medicare funding but they are also "borrowing" that money to pay for the health care bill. This is double counting the $. If you use it for the health care bill, then it will not cover the shortfall in medicare funding. If you use it for medicare, then it is not available to pay for the health care bill which supposedly will cover 30 million more people but there is already a doctor shortage. It is estimated up to a third of the doctors will leave the profession if this bill is passed so good luck finding a doctor. Obama has created government jobs which increases the burden on the taxpayers to fund those jobs. Obama's actions have not spurred the creation of private sector jobs. The Fed has been holding interest rates at 1 %. When interest rates rise, the deficit will explode. US bonds are already about to be downgraded. We need to prepare for a depression the likes of which we have never seen.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
March 17, 2010
Today was relatively good in terms of on-time until now. I have had a severe tremor since 9 pm, took another sinement at 9, it's now 10 pm. Sinemet hasn't kicked in yet. Can't type.
I took another sinemet. The tremor finally subsided at 11 pm but was back again when I awoke at 4 am. Except for the evening, I had good "on" time yesterday but I lacked energy all day. I went for a walk around 4 pm. On the way home, I stopped at the track to run but felt too fatigued. I am concerned that Obamacare may pass which will not bode well for receiving neurology services and surgery approval in the future.
I took another sinemet. The tremor finally subsided at 11 pm but was back again when I awoke at 4 am. Except for the evening, I had good "on" time yesterday but I lacked energy all day. I went for a walk around 4 pm. On the way home, I stopped at the track to run but felt too fatigued. I am concerned that Obamacare may pass which will not bode well for receiving neurology services and surgery approval in the future.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Sacramento YOPD Symposium
The National Parkinson's Foundation is sponsoring symposiums for Young Onset Parkinson's Disease this year (2010). I listened to the speakers via live webcast. There has continued to be increasing success with Deep Brain Stimulation surgery (DBS). This surgery appears to be designed for patients like me...relatively young suffering from dyskenisia and on/off fluctuations. An electrode is implanted in the brain connected by a wire running down the side of the neck to a pacemaker implanted in the chest. I have been hoping they would find a way to accomplish this without the wire and pacemaker which apparently is a procedure currently in process but I don't know when it will be available. The current procedure has been used and refined for over ten years.
Gene therapy is beng tested which accomplishes the same result as DBS. The therapy created by During and Michael G Kaplitt, M. D., Ph.D., attaches the gene for a chemical messenger called GAD to a harmless virus. After infusion into the STN via a thin needle, this genetically engineered virus gets into brain cells and makes them send out GAD signals. It's a signal that tells the brain to calm down. It doesn't work right away. It takes time for GAD levels to build up. This holds great promise but has not been used and tested as long as DBS . They have not yet confirmed any real use for stem cells in relieving Parkinson's symptoms.
I plan to discuss this with my neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and hopefully attend the next symposium in Georgia in the fall. I have to weigh the benefits of waiting to allow doctors to refine current practices and develop new procedures. There is greater success with younger patients and if the current procedures can help me now, should I take advantage of that now?
Gene therapy is beng tested which accomplishes the same result as DBS. The therapy created by During and Michael G Kaplitt, M. D., Ph.D., attaches the gene for a chemical messenger called GAD to a harmless virus. After infusion into the STN via a thin needle, this genetically engineered virus gets into brain cells and makes them send out GAD signals. It's a signal that tells the brain to calm down. It doesn't work right away. It takes time for GAD levels to build up. This holds great promise but has not been used and tested as long as DBS . They have not yet confirmed any real use for stem cells in relieving Parkinson's symptoms.
I plan to discuss this with my neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and hopefully attend the next symposium in Georgia in the fall. I have to weigh the benefits of waiting to allow doctors to refine current practices and develop new procedures. There is greater success with younger patients and if the current procedures can help me now, should I take advantage of that now?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
