All Your Moral Are Belong to ObamaCare -- Welcome to ObamaCare...

polifrog




We are not a one-size-fits-all nation.

WSJ Editorial:

The entire thrust of ObamaCare is to standardize benefits and how they must be paid for and provided, regardless of individual choices or ethical convictions.

...

...But the rule is already final. HHS tried to sell it as a compromise when it was announced, and in any case HHS would revive this coercion whenever it is politically convenient some time in Mr. Obama’s second term. Religious liberty won’t be protected from the entitlement state until ObamaCare is repealed.

Welcome to ObamaCare...




out

Rep. David Price's Albatross (Hucksterism)....

polifrog


ObamaCare is David Price's vote that keeps on giving. Perhaps had he read the bill first he would not have been selling it as a path to lessening the national debt and pain at the wallet. I doubt that, though. At any rate, the passage of time is making David Price look more and more disingenuous in his hucksterism.

Now the "administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn't passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them" according to NRO.

Let us count the ways it hits the national purse (which your purse and mine)....

1. People losing coverage:
About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on MedicareAdvantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.

2. Huge fines for companies:
Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

3. Higher costs for consumers:
Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.

4. A program created to fail:
The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”

5. Spending increases:
Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

6. “Free-riders”:
An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

7. Spending reductions are fiction:
Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”

8. You can’t keep your doctor:
Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.

9. Coverage but no care:
A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

Supporters of ObamaCare...Econ 10 flunkies. Every one of them.





out

Rep. -- And the Immorality of the Mandated "Generosity" Called Health Care Reform...

polifrog



Ed Morris said of Rep. Larry Kissell's NO vote on ObamaCare:

The Daily Vampire:It may even cost him his job," Morris said. "But if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility."

Just how moral is ObamaCare? Let's look at church attendance between nations that compel attendance to those that leave the matter to individual choice.

IN the US. church attendance rates seem wedded to around 44% while in Europe the rates often fall into the single digits depending on the nation. These low rates that plague Europe could easily be rectified by law through the use of mandatory church attendance provisions. If we assume Europe achieves attendance records of near 100% through such measures could it then be argued that Europe is more moral than the US?

The obvious answer is NO. Morality can not be forced onto a people exogenously. Although it may look like morality statistically (a near 100% church attendance), it is not a true morality and negatively affects the church and nation. Religion is cheapened, as a whole, because it is understood that most people are only there to avoid breaking the law at which point the motives of all those who attend church become questionable.

True morality, on the other hand, springs forth from within an individual through voluntary action (40%-50% church attendance in the US) to positively affect the church and nation. Although the percentage of regular church goers is less in the US, those members that choose to attend are more frequently true believers which, in turn, positively affect the respect of the church.

If we now turn to generosity we find that liberals have a penchant for mandating generosity and calling such mandates "moral" even though this is no different than mandating that the citizenry attend church. When Ed Morris says "but if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility," he is arguing that mandated generosity through ObamaCare is a moral imperative.

In so doing, liberals loose sight of the fact that true generosity, the giving of dollars of love, with love, is lost. The dollars they gather enter the gov. by force and as such are not dollars of love. Those dollars then work their way through the soul crushing machinery of governance. Many of those dollars are skimmed off to run the bureaucracy, while others lube the gears of political leverage and influence. The dollars that remain are soulless and without love or humanity when they finally get into the hands of those who need them. These dollars do not carry with them any sense of goodwill, but are instead dollars for the sake of statistics. Liberals then point to all those soulless dollars as a metric of morality.

Government taxes are increasingly crowding charity. Dollars that may have gone to The March of Dimes or to The Red Cross or may have been used by one individual to help another are instead absorbed by government. Compare the offices of any charity to the the offices of any Government program and ask yourself if the government's overhead is moral. Compare the way dollars are received by the recipient from the gov. to the way they are received from an individual and ask yourself which is more moral. We are witnessing the death of American charity and liberals call that moral.

There is no morality in ObamaCare, only the statistical patina of morality. Legislating morality is in itself immoral and cheapens morality in America just as religion is cheapened in a nation of forced adherents.

By voting for ObamaCare, GK Butterfieldlent his support for immorality, soulless dollars and a cheapening of American morality.





out

Rep. David Price -- And the Immorality of the Mandated "Generosity" Called Health Care Reform...

polifrog



Ed Morris said of Rep. Larry Kissell's NO vote on ObamaCare:

The Daily Vampire:It may even cost him his job," Morris said. "But if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility."

Just how moral is ObamaCare? Let's look at church attendance between nations that compel attendance to those that leave the matter to individual choice.

IN the US. church attendance rates seem wedded to around 44% while in Europe the rates often fall into the single digits depending on the nation. These low rates that plague Europe could easily be rectified by law through the use of mandatory church attendance provisions. If we assume Europe achieves attendance records of near 100% through such measures could it then be argued that Europe is more moral than the US?

The obvious answer is NO. Morality can not be forced onto a people exogenously. Although it may look like morality statistically (a near 100% church attendance), it is not a true morality and negatively affects the church and nation. Religion is cheapened, as a whole, because it is understood that most people are only there to avoid breaking the law at which point the motives of all those who attend church become questionable.

True morality, on the other hand, springs forth from within an individual through voluntary action (40%-50% church attendance in the US) to positively affect the church and nation. Although the percentage of regular church goers is less in the US, those members that choose to attend are more frequently true believers which, in turn, positively affect the respect of the church.

If we now turn to generosity we find that liberals have a penchant for mandating generosity and calling such mandates "moral" even though this is no different than mandating that the citizenry attend church. When Ed Morris says "but if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility," he is arguing that mandated generosity through ObamaCare is a moral imperative.

In so doing, liberals loose sight of the fact that true generosity, the giving of dollars of love, with love, is lost. The dollars they gather enter the gov. by force and as such are not dollars of love. Those dollars then work their way through the soul crushing machinery of governance. Many of those dollars are skimmed off to run the bureaucracy, while others lube the gears of political leverage and influence. The dollars that remain are soulless and without love or humanity when they finally get into the hands of those who need them. These dollars do not carry with them any sense of goodwill, but are instead dollars for the sake of statistics. Liberals then point to all those soulless dollars as a metric of morality.

Government taxes are increasingly crowding charity. Dollars that may have gone to The March of Dimes or to The Red Cross or may have been used by one individual to help another are instead absorbed by government. Compare the offices of any charity to the the offices of any Government program and ask yourself if the government's overhead is moral. Compare the way dollars are received by the recipient from the gov. to the way they are received from an individual and ask yourself which is more moral. We are witnessing the death of American charity and liberals call that moral.

There is no morality in ObamaCare, only the statistical patina of morality. Legislating morality is in itself immoral and cheapens morality in America just as religion is cheapened in a nation of forced adherents.

By voting for ObamaCare, David Price lent his support for immorality, soulless dollars and a cheapening of American morality.





out

Rep. Bob Etheridge -- And the Immorality of the Mandated "Generosity" Called Health Care Reform...

polifrog



Ed Morris said of Rep. Larry Kissell's NO vote on ObamaCare:

The Daily Vampire:It may even cost him his job," Morris said. "But if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility."

Just how moral is ObamaCare? Let's look at church attendance between nations that compel attendance to those that leave the matter to individual choice.

IN the US. church attendance rates seem wedded to around 44% while in Europe the rates often fall into the single digits depending on the nation. These low rates that plague Europe could easily be rectified by law through the use of mandatory church attendance provisions. If we assume Europe achieves attendance records of near 100% through such measures could it then be argued that Europe is more moral than the US?

The obvious answer is NO. Morality can not be forced onto a people exogenously. Although it may look like morality statistically (a near 100% church attendance), it is not a true morality and negatively affects the church and nation. Religion is cheapened, as a whole, because it is understood that most people are only there to avoid breaking the law at which point the motives of all those who attend church become questionable.

True morality, on the other hand, springs forth from within an individual through voluntary action (40%-50% church attendance in the US) to positively affect the church and nation. Although the percentage of regular church goers is less in the US, those members that choose to attend are more frequently true believers which, in turn, positively affect the respect of the church.

If we now turn to generosity we find that liberals have a penchant for mandating generosity and calling such mandates "moral" even though this is no different than mandating that the citizenry attend church. When Ed Morris says "but if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility," he is arguing that mandated generosity through ObamaCare is a moral imperative.

In so doing, liberals loose sight of the fact that true generosity, the giving of dollars of love, with love, is lost. The dollars they gather enter the gov. by force and as such are not dollars of love. Those dollars then work their way through the soul crushing machinery of governance. Many of those dollars are skimmed off to run the bureaucracy, while others lube the gears of political leverage and influence. The dollars that remain are soulless and without love or humanity when they finally get into the hands of those who need them. These dollars do not carry with them any sense of goodwill, but are instead dollars for the sake of statistics. Liberals then point to all those soulless dollars as a metric of morality.

Government taxes are increasingly crowding charity. Dollars that may have gone to The March of Dimes or to The Red Cross or may have been used by one individual to help another are instead absorbed by government. Compare the offices of any charity to the the offices of any Government program and ask yourself if the government's overhead is moral. Compare the way dollars are received by the recipient from the gov. to the way they are received from an individual and ask yourself which is more moral. We are witnessing the death of American charity and liberals call that moral.

There is no morality in ObamaCare, only the statistical patina of morality. Legislating morality is in itself immoral and cheapens morality in America just as religion is cheapened in a nation of forced adherents.

By voting for ObamaCare, Bob Etheridge lent his support for immorality, soulless dollars and a cheapening of American morality.





out

Rep. GK Butterfield's Albatross (Hucksterism)....

polifrog


ObamaCare is GK Butterfield's vote that keeps on giving. Perhaps had he read the bill first he would not have been selling it as a path to lessening the national debt and pain at the wallet. I doubt that, though. At any rate, the passage of time is making GK Butterfield look more and more disingenuous in his hucksterism.

Now the "administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn't passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them" according to NRO.

Let us count the ways it hits the national purse (which your purse and mine)....

1. People losing coverage:
About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on MedicareAdvantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.

2. Huge fines for companies:
Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

3. Higher costs for consumers:
Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.

4. A program created to fail:
The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”

5. Spending increases:
Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

6. “Free-riders”:
An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

7. Spending reductions are fiction:
Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”

8. You can’t keep your doctor:
Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.

9. Coverage but no care:
A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

Supporters of ObamaCare...Econ 10 flunkies. Every one of them.





out

Rep. Brad Miller -- And the Immorality of the Mandated "Generosity" Called Health Care Reform...

polifrog



Ed Morris said of Brad Miller's NO vote on ObamaCare:

The Daily Vampire:It may even cost him his job," Morris said. "But if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility."

Just how moral is ObamaCare? Let's look at church attendance between nations that compel attendance to those that leave the matter to individual choice.

IN the US. church attendance rates seem wedded to around 44% while in Europe the rates often fall into the single digits depending on the nation. These low rates that plague Europe could easily be rectified by law through the use of mandatory church attendance provisions. If we assume Europe achieves attendance records of near 100% through such measures could it then be argued that Europe is more moral than the US?

The obvious answer is NO. Morality can not be forced onto a people exogenously. Although it may look like morality statistically (a near 100% church attendance), it is not a true morality and negatively affects the church and nation. Religion is cheapened, as a whole, because it is understood that most people are only there to avoid breaking the law at which point the motives of all those who attend church become questionable.

True morality, on the other hand, springs forth from within an individual through voluntary action (40%-50% church attendance in the US) to positively affect the church and nation. Although the percentage of regular church goers is less in the US, those members that choose to attend are more frequently true believers which, in turn, positively affect the respect of the church.

If we now turn to generosity we find that liberals have a penchant for mandating generosity and calling such mandates "moral" even though this is no different than mandating that the citizenry attend church. When Ed Morris says "but if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility," he is arguing that mandated generosity through ObamaCare is a moral imperative.

In so doing, liberals loose sight of the fact that true generosity, the giving of dollars of love, with love, is lost. The dollars they gather enter the gov. by force and as such are not dollars of love. Those dollars then work their way through the soul crushing machinery of governance. Many of those dollars are skimmed off to run the bureaucracy, while others lube the gears of political leverage and influence. The dollars that remain are soulless and without love or humanity when they finally get into the hands of those who need them. These dollars do not carry with them any sense of goodwill, but are instead dollars for the sake of statistics. Liberals then point to all those soulless dollars as a metric of morality.

Government taxes are increasingly crowding charity. Dollars that may have gone to The March of Dimes or to The Red Cross or may have been used by one individual to help another are instead absorbed by government. Compare the offices of any charity to the the offices of any Government program and ask yourself if the government's overhead is moral. Compare the way dollars are received by the recipient from the gov. to the way they are received from an individual and ask yourself which is more moral. We are witnessing the death of American charity and liberals call that moral.

There is no morality in ObamaCare, only the statistical patina of morality. Legislating morality is in itself immoral and cheapens morality in America just as religion is cheapened in a nation of forced adherents.

By voting for ObamaCare, Brad Miller lent his support for immorality, soulless dollars and a cheapening of American morality.





out

Bob Etheridge (NC-2) ObamaCare increasing the cost of healthcare...

..

Obama attempted to sell Americans on ObamaCare as a way to save money.
1)Cheaper for the individual.
2)Cheaper as a whole due to increased competition.
3)Cheaper due to Government Control.
4)Lowers costs by spreading the costs.

All the above contentions are untrue.

First, I will be among those who are forced to buy more health-care than I would otherwise buy as insurance. I prefer to purchase catastrophic insurance and cover my other health care costs as needed and this plan will increase my costs. I am not alone.

Second. Government competition is not competition. Governments have endlessly deep pockets and private businesses will not be able to compete. This increases costs for the nation as private alternatives are pushed out of the market leaving government as the only alternative. (Will government lament the lack of competition when they are the only provider.)

Third. Government control is another way of saying you will not get the care you want, but rather the care that is offered. Government controls, in the end, increase cost as efficiencies can't be as easily followed as one regulation or another precludes the efficient choices.

Fourth. Spreading the costs actually increase costs as the costs are not immediately born by the end user, but rather the a middleman (government) . The normal mechanism by which costs are controlled is broken by divorcing provider from end user.

The Department of Health and Human Services (RedState)...

We estimate that overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion (0.9 percent) during the calendar years 2010-2019

Although several provisions would help to reduce health care volts growth, their impact would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from coverage expansions.

Yahoo...

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.

And here..

As for the actual cost involved, the penalty will be the higher of either $695 or 2.5% of income. Effectively, those earning below $27,800 would pay the flat rate, and after that point would begin paying the percentage. Once a person earns more than $40,000, the penalty will exceed $1,000. At $59,000, it would reach $1,475.

And Kathleen Sebelius admits she is clueless as to how much the "High Risk Pools" will cost. Estimates are already beyond original expectations.

And lastly...



Bob Etheridge's vote for this dishonestly promoted travesty should lead to his replacement.





polifrog

Rep. Bob Etheridge's Albatross (Hucksterism)....

polifrog


ObamaCare is Bob Etheridge's vote that keeps on giving. Perhaps had he read the bill first he would not have been selling it as a path to lessening the national debt and pain at the wallet. I doubt that, though. At any rate, the passage of time is making Bob Etheridge look more and more disingenuous in his hucksterism.

Now the "administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn't passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them" according to NRO.

Let us count the ways it hits the national purse (which your purse and mine)....

1. People losing coverage:
About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on MedicareAdvantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.

2. Huge fines for companies:
Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

3. Higher costs for consumers:
Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.

4. A program created to fail:
The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”

5. Spending increases:
Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

6. “Free-riders”:
An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

7. Spending reductions are fiction:
Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”

8. You can’t keep your doctor:
Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.

9. Coverage but no care:
A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

Supporters of ObamaCare...Econ 10 flunkies. Every one of them.





out

Rep. Brad Miller, Bob Etheridge, David Price -- And the Immorality of the Mandated "Generosity" Called Health Care Reform...

polifrog



Ed Morris said of Rep. Larry Kissell's NO vote on ObamaCare:

The Daily Vampire:It may even cost him his job," Morris said. "But if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility."

Just how moral is ObamaCare? Let's look at church attendance between nations that compel attendance to those that leave the matter to individual choice.

IN the US. church attendance rates seem wedded to around 44% while in Europe the rates often fall into the single digits depending on the nation. These low rates that plague Europe could easily be rectified by law through the use of mandatory church attendance provisions. If we assume Europe achieves attendance records of near 100% through such measures could it then be argued that Europe is more moral than the US?

The obvious answer is NO. Morality can not be forced onto a people exogenously. Although it may look like morality statistically (a near 100% church attendance), it is not a true morality and negatively affects the church and nation. Religion is cheapened, as a whole, because it is understood that most people are only there to avoid breaking the law at which point the motives of all those who attend church become questionable.

True morality, on the other hand, springs forth from within an individual through voluntary action (40%-50% church attendance in the US) to positively affect the church and nation. Although the percentage of regular church goers is less in the US, those members that choose to attend are more frequently true believers which, in turn, positively affect the respect of the church.

If we now turn to generosity we find that liberals have a penchant for mandating generosity and calling such mandates "moral" even though this is no different than mandating that the citizenry attend church. When Ed Morris says "but if he can save one life, it's a moral responsibility," he is arguing that mandated generosity through ObamaCare is a moral imperative.

In so doing, liberals loose sight of the fact that true generosity, the giving of dollars of love, with love, is lost. The dollars they gather enter the gov. by force and as such are not dollars of love. Those dollars then work their way through the soul crushing machinery of governance. Many of those dollars are skimmed off to run the bureaucracy, while others lube the gears of political leverage and influence. The dollars that remain are soulless and without love or humanity when they finally get into the hands of those who need them. These dollars do not carry with them any sense of goodwill, but are instead dollars for the sake of statistics. Liberals then point to all those soulless dollars as a metric of morality.

Government taxes are increasingly crowding charity. Dollars that may have gone to The March of Dimes or to The Red Cross or may have been used by one individual to help another are instead absorbed by government. Compare the offices of any charity to the the offices of any Government program and ask yourself if the government's overhead is moral. Compare the way dollars are received by the recipient from the gov. to the way they are received from an individual and ask yourself which is more moral. We are witnessing the death of American charity and liberals call that moral.

There is no morality in ObamaCare, only the statistical patina of morality. Legislating morality is in itself immoral and cheapens morality in America just as religion is cheapened in a nation of forced adherents.

By voting for ObamaCare, Brad Miller lent his support for immorality, soulless dollars and a cheapening of American morality.





out