Ideal GOP Political Platform Simplified...

Why is it so hard for seemingly intelligent people tell it like it is?  I'll give a few examples:

Illegal immigration:

The problems are huge but only in volume, not complexity.  40% of illegal immigrants came here legally and have over stayed their visas.  Why would be so hard to track them down and deport them?

14th amendment should be readdressed to reverse the anchor baby issue, which isn't a huge issue by volume, but is also not correct.  Trump is correct that the USA is one of a handful of countries in the world that allow this inane act.  It was originally targeted to native American's and ex-slaves, not women who come to the USA illegally to give birth in order to receive the plethora of government entitlements.

Finally, do we really not have enough immigration laws?  How would we know, when we haven't bothered to enforce many of them for decades.  How about we start enforcing them?

Fully implement E-Verify so that every employer cannot legally employ them.  Prosecute the employers, both companies and individuals who may employ housekeepers or landscapers.  Many will head back across the border on their own if they cannot find a job.

For the people who are left, I'd offer a 1 time chance for the following:

• To register as an illegal immigrant.  You'd get a card and a court date.
• On the court date, if you can provide proof of employment (which would be unlikely given the above restrictions on employment), proof you are legitimately paying taxes and not receiving government benefits, your ID card will become a illegal immigrant green card. 
• The illegal immigrant green card will provide them with a place in line behind all the immigrants legally applying.
• As long as the illegal immigrant maintains steady employment and pays taxes they can stay in the U.S.   
• If for any reason the illegal immigrant cannot, they will be returned to their country of origin
• If the illegal immigrant doesn't show up for their court date, a warrant for arrest would be issued and they'd be permanently denied legal citizenship and once discovered they'd be deported.
• Any illegal immigrant with a criminal record (beyond being here illegally) will be denied citizenship.
• Once an illegal immigrant green card is received, they will not be allowed to receive government benefits or to vote.
• If they came here illegally and went through all this, then they can stay, but you will not be allowed to vote - ever.  The legal children of illegal immigrants would be allowed to vote (i.e., 2nd generation) 
• Finally, what is so difficult about building a wall where it makes sense and installing electronic monitoring everywhere else to tighten up the border?  Just because it'd be a long wall?  Who cares?  If for no other reason, it should be built to keep out terrorists who aren't here already.

Middle East:

The U.S.A. has to be more engaged.  The damage has been done by Obama's leading from behind.  The evidence is everywhere.  ISIS must be defeated and that will likely require troops be returned to the dessert again.  I hate it, but anyone who says differently is naive, ignorant, lying, or some combination.

Israel:

It should be made blatantly clear to the entire world that any attack on Israel is an attack on the US and it's NATO partners.  Mess with them and you'll pay a heavy price.

Russia:

Install missile defense systems in Poland (which Obama reneged on), provide weapons and training to Ukraine and engage in NATO military exercises in the Baltic Sea and the plains of the Baltic States to show Putin the USA is back and we're in charge.

China:

This is really handled through economic policy by allowing companies to repatriate their income if they return manufacturing to the US.  China is not the low cost producer it was in the 80's & 90's.  Once their manufacturing base begins to crumble, they'll be much more amenable to fair trade policies.  Once there is a little chink in the armor we can turn the heat up on human rights issues, their support of N. Korea, and their environmental policy.  We should also fight back (if we haven't already) on cyber terrorism.  We need to rebuild our navy to ensure the free flow of goods & services all over the world, especially the Pacific Rim.

Foreign Aid:

Eliminate all cash foreign aid to countries unless they have signed a treaty of non-aggression to the USA. No government shall receive any foreign unless there are free elections allowed.  This would be particularity applicable to African nations where the dictators receive aid in either cash, which they keep, or food which they promptly repackage so that it looks as if their own country is providing the aid to their population. In the case of the West African nations, we should encourage them to trade oil for food and insist the food be distributed through our own NGO's.  Remaining countries who would like the protection of the USA, should be providing us with payment for such services (i.e., Japan, Philippines, Korea, et al.).

Entitlements:

Welfare state - Reinstate the requirement to be working to receive benefits that Obama suspended. You must also pass drug screening.  Block grant states their benefits based on population with bonuses to those who put more people back to work in real careers.  Provide childcare credits so parents can work and children can grow up seeing their parent go to work everyday in order to make a livelihood. Provide greater benefits to two parent households.

Social Security: Adjust the retirement age up.  60% benefits for those who retire between 62-65.  75% benefits for those who retire between 65-70.  90% for those who retire between 71-73.  100% for those who retire at 74 and over.  Same goes for income.  Anyone receiving retirement income, including union pensions, and tax-free income from muni's, annuities, trusts, etc.. would have their benefits reduced accordingly.  Benefits reduced by 25% for those whose income exceeds 200% of median household income, 50% over 300%, 75% over 400% and 100% over 500%.

The young should be able to opt out with proof of personal retirement investments equal to at least 10% of their pretax income annually.  This would be phases in over the 15-20 years.

Tax Simplification:

Phase 1 (1st term): Simple tax.  Eliminate all deductions, including those for home mortgages.  0% tax on first $50,000, 15% from $50,001 to $100,000, 20% from $100,001 to $300,000, $25% from $300,000-$500,000 and 30% on anything over $500,000.  All investment income taxed at this rate (i.e., eliminate capital gains tax, death tax, etc...)  The income in this example could be adjust to some percent of median income from previous tax year.

Eliminate income tax on repatriated profits of U.S. companies.

Eliminate all subsidies to industries (i.e. "corporate welfare') including all farm subsidies.

Allow companies instant depreciation on capital expenditures.

No special carve-outs for any company, industry or person.

Phase 2 (2nd term): Replace the simple tax with a consumption tax.  See: Fair Tax .

Abortion:

Abortion was made legal in all 50 states 1973 by 12 men in black robes.  Period.  All that is left for discussion are two things:

1. What is the proper age in which a child may be murdered by their mother?
2. Who is responsible to pay for said murders?

End of discussion.

Healthcare Reform:

Repeal Obamacare.  Replace with simple reforms:

• Allow insurance companies to sell benefits across state lines.
• Remove bundling of insurance (i.e., if you are a single man you should not be forced to pay for maternity coverage.)
• Create a safety net pool for those with pre-existing conditions and for the unemployable.
• Increase HSA usage - require it for all newborns and partially fund some HSA's for younger workers.  This money must be portable.  Some portion of you the HSA investment should be inheritable, with the balance going to fund the safety net for the indigent.  For example, if you've been contributing your entire life and you suddenly pass away at age 65 with a balance of $750,000 in your HSA, 75% is inheritable, while 25% goes into a fund (i.e., "lock-box) to fund healthcare for the indigent.  
• No deductions for healthcare expenses, but would provide for lifetime cap, probably based on a multiple of your income.
• This system would eventually phase out Medicare.
• Every attempt should be made to encourage patients to directly pay the doctor, especially for routine visits such as check-ups and simple items to dispense prescriptions for cold,etc..
• Allow drug companies to off-set future earnings by supplying prescriptions to the indigent for free or at a greatly reduced rate.

What's left...?

Cabinet/Department Consolidations:

Combine Departments of Labor, Commerce, Transportation and Agriculture, putting them under the Department of the Interior.  Department of Energy would be put under Defense.

Eliminate Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development

So the Departments would be as follows:

• Department of Defense
• Department of State
• Department of Justice
• Department of Interior
• Department of Health and Human Services (I'd rename it: Department of Social Welfare - so no one would lose sight of it's real purpose.)
• Department of Veterans Affairs (renamed: Department of Veterans Recovery)
• Department of Homeland Security

The federal government should institute a hiring freeze for every department except for the recruiting of soldiers for the Department of Defense and Federal Air Traffic Controllers.  Open positions would be filled by current under-utilized employees from other departments.  Every department would have their REAL budget cut (not the 'Base-line-budget number) by 10% annually for 4 years, then 5% for 4 years.  This would put us back to pre-Obama budgets.

Term-limits:

Every politician seems to run on term limits only to drop the subject once elected.  The POTUS should use his/her bully pulpit to urge the GOP controlled congress to pass the following term limits and reduction of pensions for congressmen & senators:

Congressmen: 3 terms.  Unless you complete all 3 terms no pension.  If you do, your pension would consist of $25,000 for life and be subject to a phase out similar to the Social Security means testing described above.

Senators: 2 terms, unless you served for any amount of time as a congressman, then 1 term and out. Same pension as Congressmen.

Congress should also eliminate all of the sweet benefits they receive, like free haircuts, free gym, etc...

Congress should be subject to Obamacare until it is repealed.

Veterans Healthcare:

Much like education, the money should follow the soldier, regardless of the provider.  If a vet needs common healthcare they should be allowed to go to any provider.  Vets with special needs such as PTSD therapy should be provided that care quickly and completely at Veterans Hospitals nationwide.  In the rare case where the care isn't quickly and easily available, they should be allowed to seek care where they can and have the costs covered.  

D'oh!

Remember these famous words:

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance. - Nancy Pelosi 

Or How about these famous words:

But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. - Nancy Pelosi

Ironically, those quotes from the San Fran Nan were never talked about in this story:

With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies for New York Professionals

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS, NYT
December 13, 2013

Here's a few excerpts from the story (along with my running commentary):

Many in New York’s professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama’s health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, if they can find it. [Oh, pshaw, the poor darlings.  What was it San Fran Nan said.  Oh yeah, "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance."]

The people affected include not just writers, artists, doctors and the like, but also independent tradespeople, like home builders or carpenters, who work on their own.  [99% of whom have never voted for anyone but a Democrat - EVER.]

But while those policies, by and large, had been canceled because they did not meet the law’s requirements for minimum coverage, many of the New York policies being canceled meet and often exceed the standards, brokers say. The rationale for disqualifying those policies, said Larry Levitt, a health policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, was to prevent associations from selling insurance to healthy members who are needed to keep the new health exchanges financially viable.  [Yes, the healthy cannot possibly have such good insurance.  It would be unfair, unequal.  We must all share in the misery.]

Among those affected are members of the Authors Guild; the Advertising Photographers of America; the Suzuki Association of the Americas, a music teachers organization; theSociety of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators; the New York City Bar Association; and the New York County Medical Society. (One group, the Freelancers Union, negotiated a one-year exemption with the state.)  [Oh, to be in a union....]

But the pull quote of the entire article has to be this line.  I mean really, if this doesn't sum up the idiocity of the liberal mindset:

“One of the reasons to join a society is to get health insurance,” said Dr. Paul N. Orloff, president of the New York County Medical Society. Even doctors pay a lot for coverage, he said, because the days of trading medical care with colleagues are long gone. “In the old days, professional courtesy was the norm,” Dr. Orloff said.  [Yes, he really said that.  Who knew health insurance was such an integral part of our society?  Given that health insurance was largely an invention created during & after WWII to attract workers to companies, it makes one wonder how we got along for the first 160 years.]

And then there is this sad truth:

It is not lost on many of the professionals that they are exactly the sort of people — liberal, concerned with social justice — who supported the Obama health plan in the first place. Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney. [If only she hadn't been lied to for 4 years by the same paper that wrote this story, she might have known what she was in for....  I'll be she re-ups her subscription though.  I also bet she voted for De Blasio.  If she doesn't like Obamacare, just wait & see what her mayor has in store for her.  People like her will never, let me say it again: NEVER, vote for a Republican, or at least admit it, lest they not get invited to the right cocktail parties...]

$4,759,236 paid to WedMD by Obamacare

Yes, that's right $4,759,236 paid to WedMD by Obamacare.  See this article in the Washington Times (not exactly a conservative paper):

Concierge medicine: WebMD pockets millions from feds to promote Obamacare

By Jim McElhalton - The Washington Times, Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Two months before enrollment began in the Obamacare exchanges, the administration’s top health care official heaped praise on WebMD for launching an online resource to help Americans navigate the complex law.

The consumer health care site had the occasional nice thing to say about Obamacare, too. In one article, it predicted doctors might pick up more patients and crowed in an article titled “7 Surprising Things About the Affordable Care Act” that many consumers already had received insurance refunds under the law.

But what neither Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius nor WebMD mentioned at the time was that the company, which millions of Americans regularly read for health news, also stood to earn millions of dollars from a federal contract to teach doctors about Obamacare.

The contract documents, reviewed by The Washington Times, reward WebMD handsomely. For instance, the fee schedule offers dozens of products, including:  

• As much as $126,826 for a single 5,000-word review article on scientific advances in a clinical topic.

• Up to $68,916 for a four-minute video from an opinion specialist.

• More than $140,000 for an eight-question online quiz.

WebMD says it doesn’t believe it had an obligation to disclose to its broad consumer base its $4.8 million contract with the government. The company says the contract, while awarded to WebMD, went through its Medscape platform, which provides continuing education to doctors in a password-protected portal and is run independently from WebMD’s news operation. 

The article goes on to describe what some this "funding" is intended for:

Under the contract, awarded through the General Services Administration’s supply schedule, the training services consist of lectures, articles, podcasts and “expert viewpoints” in audio, video or writing, among other presentations. Doctors can get continuing education credits for watching the videos.

A four minute expert viewpoint video — described in GSA documents as a way for “key opinion leaders to offer specific commentaries” — costs the government up to $68,916 under the contract.

An “exclusively sponsored” five- to eight-question quiz “to convey key sponsor messages” costs more than $140,000 under the contract for a three-month term.

Several of the online offerings through Medscape feature CMS personnel discussing Obamacare on video.

“The Health Insurance Marketplace: What does it mean for my practice?” features Dr. Eugene Freund, medical officer for the center for consumer information and insurance oversight at CMS.

In the video, Dr. Freund describes the enrollment, coverage changes, state and federal marketplaces and eligibility, but he also includes a hopeful message to doctors about the benefits of Obamacare.

“First, we should expect big changes in access,” Dr. Freund said on the video. “We should expect to see more patients because there will be an increased number of insured Americans.“The one-shop stopping assistance and the financial assistance based on eligibility, including tax credits to offset cost and cost-sharing subsidies, should increase the number of your patients who now have insurance.”

It’s unclear how much the presentation cost taxpayers, but records list varying prices for videos, including $129,219 for an “originally developed video webcast delivered by a single expert.”

Healthcare Fraud Begins

And so it begins....

The defrauding of the government is the least of it.

The worst part is that this doesn't even expose the coming wave of stolen identifications that is bound to happen through these navigators.

And you just wait until people find out they are registered Democrats after signing up for Obamacare.

Remember, the REAL purpose of Obamacare was to make everyone a registered and participating Democrat to lock in their power for generations....

CBS's Random Act of Journalism - Obamacare

The list of problems on the role out of Obamacare is lengthy, too lengthy to list here.  But, one of the worst issues is that the website security issues are a mess.  What happens when thousands, possibly millions of Americans have their identity stolen? Who will pay?  Who will be responsible to get these issues straightened out?  

This story only deals with the actual website.  Another point of contact where your identity can get stolen is the healthcare "navigators".  For those of you who don't know what these are, navigators are people who either in person or over the phone take all your information and help you "navigate" the process.  In reality, these are thinly veiled democrats whose main responsibility is to register democrat voters.  Obamacare provided millions of dollars of grants to organizations like Planned Parenthood, ACORN (or whatever they are calling themselves these days), SEIU, etc....  Known felons can apply and receive these jobs as navigators.  These people will gather your Social Security Number, Birth Date, Address, Telephone Number, etc... basically, everything required to steal you identity.



Sharyl Attkisson might be the only true journalist left in the mainstream media.  How she continues to get face time behind enemy lines on the nightly news is beyond me....  My prediction is that if she keeps it up, she'll end up having to seek refuge at FNC.

New HIPAA Review

This is the first page of the "NEW" HIPAA form due to Obamacare from my eye doctor:

I included only page 1 because the rest of the document was rather innocuous.  Clearly, the most disturbing part is section entitled:

"OTHER DISCLOSURES AND USES WE MAY MAKE WITHOUT YOUR AUTHORIZATION OR CONSENT"

I've highlighted the reasons that to me are most offensive.  In order of disturbing they are as follows:

 1.     "uses or disclosures for specialized government functions, such as for the protection of the president or high ranking government officials; for lawful national intelligence activities;  for military purposes; for the evaluation and health of the foreign service;"

• Why would my eye records be subject to uses or disclosures for the protection of the president?
• What is a high ranking government official (i.e., Congressman, Senator, Cabinet Member,  Assemblymen, Mayor, School Board member?)
• What exactly is a "lawful national intelligence activity"?
• Military purposes?  Really, does my having reoccurring chalazion effect the outcome of a war somewhere?
• Foreign service?  Hmmmm....  Just plain weird addition to the list.  Maube just covering their bases?

2.      "incidental disclosures that are an unavoidable by-product of of permitted uses or disclosures;"

• This seems overly broad.  Does this mean that if a 'courier' shows up claiming to the from "the government" and this 'courier' takes a peek at my records it's permitted as incidental & unavoidable?

3.      "disclosures to "business associates" and their subcontractors who perform health care operations for us and who commit to respect the privacy of your health information in accordance with HIPAA;" 

• Why is "business associates" in quotes?  Is this supposed to be like "You know "business associates" with a wink & a nod?  
• Subcontractors?  Why isn't it quotes too?

4.      "for audits by Medicare or Medicaid; or for investigation of possible violations of health care laws;"

• Since I use neither Medicare or Medicaid, why do they need access to my records?

5.      "disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings, such as in response to subpoenas or orders of courts or administrative agencies;"

• I guess this means that anyone with a court order can get access to my records without my consent.  
• Does this mean even if I am not involved?
• I get subpoenas & court orders for judicial proceedings, but what exactly is an administrative proceeding?  
• Can any administrative agency have access to my record?  The IRS?  The local Health Department?  How about the County Board of Commissioners?   Local Board of Elections?  

6.  "uses or disclosures for health related research;"

• Does this mean by colleges?  Can a masters student at a local community college who may be conducting research for the CDC view my records?

7.    "[specify other uses and disclosures affect by state law]"  

• None was specified, but I don't know if this is intended as a catch all for any other reason.  It seems very broad..... 

Admittedly, some of this may have already been in place.  I don't have a copy of the old HIPAA form, so I can't say that all of these were added by Obamacare.  Regardless of what administration created them, they seem to allow legal access to my eye records by virtually any person associated with any government agency or their sub-contractors.  This is very BIG BROTHER.

Is this a plan?

Let's think about this issue logically.

#1: Desire for Single Payer Universal Healthcare Plan:

But, how can you get there....?

 #2: "You don't want to let a good crisis go to waste....."





So let's review:

                       Single Payer Universal Healthcare 
                   + "Never want to let a good crisis go to waste"
                       Purposefully Created Crisis?

Or maybe it's easier to think of it like this:

                     "Never want to let a good crisis go to waste"
                   + Purposefully Created Crisis                                                
                      Single Payer Universal Healthcare

I'm just sayin'....

Really, might it not be helpful to create a crisis?  

So what to do about this?  Well, an election is coming up next year in which it is possible to take control of the U.S. Senate and reinforce control of the U.S. House of Representatives.  At that point, they could greatly curtail the further implementation of Obamacare through various procedural & budgetary methods effectively neutering the law until a GOP President can be elected in 2016.  

With both houses of the US Legislature and the Presidency the GOP could then undo Obamacare and implement free market based solutions.

The solutions are actually quite simple:

1. Allow selling of health (and all) insurance across state lines.

2. Eliminate the "minimum coverage" requirements imposed by Obamacare allowing people 
    to pick & choose what coverage they want.  (i.e., 57 year men should not be required to 
    cover maternity or fertility insurance.)

3. Reinstitute Health Savings Accounts where you can receive tax deductions for putting 
    money into HSA's to cover healthcare costs in the future.  

• These should be available for   every person from birth, so parents could fund accounts for healthcare use later in life.
• Proof of maxing out HSA's would reduce payments for Medicare withholdings.

4.  Means test Medicare.  Those people who have been responsibly setting aside money for 
     their care should receive less benefits, especially if they've contributed less to Medicare.

• These last two (#3 & #4) effectively allow people to "opt out" of Medicare.

5. Take away a business tax deduction for healthcare insurance expenses and give that tax 
    deduction to the individual.  

• This effectively makes every person a healthcare insurance consumer.  Imagine what would happen to insurance prices when insurance companies  could sell across state lines (increasing consumer choice) to a market that is immediately many times larger (individuals vs companies).

6. Tort reform limiting liability for medical malpractice.

• This would reduce the malpractice insurance of doctors and therefor their costs which would reduce costs overall.  It is after all called "practicing" medicine for a reason. While there are egregious cases were patients and their families need monetary  compensation, there need to be some realistic caps.

7. Expand Medicaid as a safety net for those in true poverty.  

There are, of course, more things that would help.  But, ultimately making the purchase of healthcare insurance and the decision of how much insurance they want to purchase, the responsibility of the individual you are restoring their liberty. 

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.  - This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson.

Insight from an actual Doctor....

So, I recently had my annual eye exam.  I asked the eye doctor what he thought about Obamacare.  Here are some anecdotes from our conversation:

• My Doctor said he believes the goal is to create an assembly line approach to his type of practice where there would be building complexes of eye doctors.  Each doctor would have about 5 minutes per patient to do the exam and then on to the next (my appointment took and hour.  I checked out fine, in case you were wondering).

• My Doctor told me that last week a man came into his office and said he wanted his free glasses.  When my Doctor asked the guy what he meant, the guy said he's got his Obama-phone and food stamps, now that healthcare is free, he wants his free glasses.  I specifically asked my Doctor if he thought the guy was serious and he said it was all perfectly serious.  The guy expected free glasses.

• Then my Doctor went on to explain that he keeps getting notices from Medicare seeking his "group number" in order to be reimbursed.  Since is is a sole practitioner he does have a "group number".  So every time he gets one of these notices he has to spend about an hour on the phone calling Medicare to get it straightened out.  Every time, when he finally reaches the right person they'll say, "Oh, you're right, you don't need a group number because you're a sole practitioner."  To which he'll ask, "Is there a way you can fix it in your system so I don't keep getting asked for my group number?"  And they'll say, "No, that is handled by another department."  

• Until last year, he had to send in his Medicare Claims via a dial-up service.  Yes.  Dial-up.  Some of you my be too young to remember the good old days of 56kps dial-up service with AOL or Earthlink, be I'm serious.  He had to unplug his fax line and use a telephone line to transmit Medicare files until January of this year.  

• But wait!  It gets better!  Not only did they have to use the dial-up service until last year, they had to store their back-ups on 3.5 floppy discs.  YES, THEY DID!  The past few times he upgraded his computer systems he had to purchase stand alone 3.5 floppy drives in order to be compliant.

So this on top of the healthcare.gov website debacle should make you're head spin.  What were they thinking?  One of the biggest reason's Obamacare is failing is because it was too big to begin with....

Healthcare in the U.S. represents 1/6th of the GDP of our country.  This is roughly equivalent to the size of the ENTIRE French economy.  How can this be allowed, much less be constitutional?

Next, I'll be taking a look at the new HIPAA Privacy Practices document I had to sign.  It is even more disturbing....

Isn't this rich? The "Enforcers" want to opt out! Really!

The same people who are going to enforce (i.e., force) Obamacare want to be excluded from it!  I would say it's ironic, but in actuality this ought to REALLY piss you off!  When will people wake up?  

It's like the proverbial, "How do you boil a frog? Put him in a pot of cool water and continue to turn up the heat."

Aren't YOU hot enough yet?

IRS employee union: We don’t want Obamacare

BY JOEL GEHRKE | JULY 26, 2013 AT 11:45 AM 

Washington examiner

IRS employees have a prominent role in Obamacare, but their union wants no part of the law.
National Treasury Employees Union officials are urging members to write their congressional representatives in opposition to receiving coverage through President Obama’s health care law.
The union leaders are providing members with a form letter to send to the congressmen that says “I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”

The NTEU represents 150,000 federal employees overall, including most of the nearly 100,000 IRS workers.

Like most other federal workers, IRS employees currently get their health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which also covers members of Congress.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp offered the bill in response to reports of congressional negotiations that would exempt lawmakers and their staff from Obamacare.

“Camp has long believed every American ought to be exempt from the law, which is why he supports full repeal,” Camp spokeswoman Allie Walker said.

“If the Obamacare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress and federal employees,” she also said.

“The NTEU represents Internal Revenue Service employees who have the responsibility to enforce much of the health insurance law, especially in terms of collecting the taxes and distributing subsidies that finance the whole system,”  said Paul Kersey, director of Labor Policy at the Illinois Policy Institute.

“IRS agents will also collect data and apply penalties for those who fail to comply with many of Obamacare’s requirements,”  Kersey said.

Stop Congress From Exempting Itself From ObamaCare!

File this under, "What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander"

Oh, the Irony....  The healthcare they want for the rest us us is not good enough for them.  Please note that all emphasis is mine:

Obamacare? We were just leaving …

By ANNA PALMER and JAKE SHERMAN | 6/13/13 5:13 AM EDT

Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.

The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive.

Democratic and Republican leaders are taking the issue seriously, but first they need more specifics from the Office of Personnel Management on how the new rule should take effect — a decision that Capitol Hill sources expect by fall, at the latest. The administration has clammed up in advance of a ruling, sources on both sides of the aisle said.

If the issue isn't resolved, and massive numbers of lawmakers and aides bolt, many on Capitol Hill fear it could lead to a brain drain just as Congress tackles a slew of weighty issues — like fights over the Tax Code and immigration reform.  [Brain drain?  From Capital Hill?  This would require us to believe they have brains to drain....]

The problem is far more acute in the House, where lawmakers and aides are generally younger and less wealthy. Sources said several aides have already given lawmakers notice that they’ll be leaving over concerns about Obamacare. Republican and Democratic lawmakers said the chatter about retiring now, to remain on the current health care plan, is constant.

Rep. John Larson, a Connecticut Democrat in leadership when the law passed, said he thinks the problem will be resolved. “If not, I think we should begin an immediate amicus brief to say, ‘Listen this is simply not fair to these employees,’” Larson told POLITICO. “They are federal employees.”  [Really?  Are federal employees more important than private sector employees?  The hubris of these people is breath taking.  The private sector has been addressing these issues of increased "healthcare" costs - really should be referred to a health insurance costs - for decades.  It's nice they finally get a taste of what it's like out here in fly over country. ]

Republicans, never a fan of Democratic health care reform, are more vocal about the potential adverse effects of the provision.  “It’s a reality,” said Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). “This is the law. … It’s going to hinder our ability with retention of members, it’s going to hinder our ability for members to take care of their families.” He said his fellow lawmakers are having “quiet conversations” about the threat.  [Why quiet conversations?  Why are they not screaming it from the roof tops?  Why are they not warning us?  Why didn't they protect us from the hideous monstrosity of government over reach?  Why has Medicare & Medicaid not been more vocal?  Oh, wait, because the law was written that Medicare & Medicaid (and AARP) could NOT send out warnings of impending cuts and increased costs.  - Yes that is true.]

Alabama Rep. Jo Bonner said the threat is already real, especially for veteran lawmakers and staff. If they leave this year, they think they can continue to be covered under the current health care plan.

“I've lost one staffer who told me in confidence that he had been here for a number of years and the thought of losing the opportunity to keep his health insurance on Dec. 31 [forced him to leave]. He could keep what he had and on Jan. 1 he would go into that big black hole,” said Bonner, who had already planned his resignation from Congress. “And then I’ve got another staff member that I think it will be a factor as she’s contemplating her future.”

Lawmakers and aides on both sides of the aisle are acutely aware of the problems with the provision. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have discussed fixes to the provision. Boehner, according to House GOP sources, believes that Reid must take the lead on crafting a solution. Since Republicans opposed the bill, Boehner does not feel responsible to lead the effort to make changes.

The Affordable Care Act — signed into law in 2010 — contained a provision known as the Grassley Amendment, which said the government can only offer members of Congress and their staff plans that are “created” in the bill or “offered through an exchange” — unless the bill is amended.

Currently, aides and lawmakers receive their health care under the generous Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. The government subsidizes upward of 75 percent of the premiums for the health insurance plans. In 2014, most Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers are expected to be put onto the exchanges, and there has been no guidance whether the government will subsidize those premiums. This is expected to cause a steep spike in health insurance costs.

There have been many options for fixing the problem discussed throughout the year, including administrative fixes and legislative tweaks. One scenario seen as likely on Capitol Hill would have OPM simply decide that the government could still subsidize insurance on the exchanges.

House Democratic leadership says the issue must be resolved.

“The leadership has assured members that fixing this issue is a top priority,” said one Democratic leadership aide. “This issue must be fixed by administrative action in order that the flawed Grassley Amendment’s spirit is honored and all staff and members are treated the same.”  [Yeah, I could see how being treated just like everyone else in the nation could be construed as "flawed" by the typical inside the beltway bureaucrat.]

It could be politically difficult to change this provision. The provision was put in the bill in the first place on the theory that if Congress was going to make the country live under the provisions of Obamacare, the members and staff should have to as well.

The uncertainty has created a growing furor on Capitol Hill with aides young and old worried about skyrocketing health care premiums cutting deeply into their already small paychecks. Some longtime aides and members of Congress, who previously had government subsidized health care for life, are concerned that their premiums will now come out of their pension.

If their fears are borne out, the results could be twofold. Some junior staff will head for the private sector early while more seasoned aides and lawmakers could leave before the end of the year so they can continue under the old plan.

Several lawmakers said departures could run the gamut from low-level staff to legislative aides, to senior aides and lawmakers. Capitol Hill is an attractive workplace for politically ambitious college graduates, but a core of Capitol Hill aides stick around for decades, serving as institutional knowledge, and earning prized retirement packages.  [Then the Grassley amendment will do the job elections never could seem to accomplish - finally draining the swamp!  Perfection!]

OPM, which administers benefits for federal employees, is expected to rule in the coming months on how congressional health care is to be administered.  OPM did not respond to a request for comment.

More than a dozen senior aides interviewed by POLITICO about the issue declined to be named out of fear for future job prospects. The problem is most acutely felt at the staff level, where aides make between $35,000 and roughly $170,000 and budgetary problems have all but stopped pay increases and bonuses. Lawmakers have questioned leadership aides about the future of their health care.

“Between the constant uncertainty surrounding sequestration, and the likelihood aides will soon be paying for the subsidy portion of their health care coverage, congressional office budgets are being squeezed once again, and it’s causing a lot of concern amongst chiefs of staff regarding how to best handle the situation,” said one chief of staff to a senior Democratic member of the House. “Do we give raises to junior level aides so they can afford to pay for their higher health care costs, and if so, where do we find the funds to do so? Additionally, leadership has been relatively silent in terms of providing guidance to offices, which is frustrating.”  [Wow.  That sounds eerily like a private sector comment.  I guess it's never too late to learn something new.] 

There are other ways that aides can fully avoid this problem. If they’re married, they can join their spouse’s health care plan. If they are 65, they can go on Medicare.  But the focus right now is centered on lawmakers trying to figure out how to offset potential increases in premiums.

“I know other members are doing the same thing in terms of what we can do to offset [premiums],” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said. “You are particularly limited now because of course we've had the cuts in the [member office allowances] on top of this. You just don’t have a lot of options.”

Cole added, “A lot of the staff stays on largely because of the benefit levels and particularly if you've got people with families and it’s extraordinarily important to them … it’s just not right.”

Jennifer Haberkorn contributed to this report.

"National Coverage Decisions" (NCD) = Death Panels...

Wow...  Is this for real?  If so, then NCD = the Death Panels everyone was talking about during the debate over Obamacare.  How can a federal agency arbitrarily set rules that trump the decision of the doctor who is actually there on the ground with the patient who may die if not given this course of action?  The rationing of healthcare is beginning and, as per usual, the winners are none other than the lawyers....  God help us....

Georgia hospitals facing federal investigation

by Randy Southerland, Contributing Writer

Atlanta Business Chronicle

Excerpts from the article:

Some of the Georgia’s largest hospitals could face multimillion-dollar losses in Medicare reimbursements, if a new federal investigation finds surgeons do not follow guidelines for patients receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators. 

The review will determine whether hospitals followed National Coverage Decision (NCD) criteria in determining who should receive the small battery-powered electrical impulse generator. The devices, which cost upward of $35,000 each, detect an abnormal heart rhythm that can cause sudden cardiac death, and then fire an electric jolt to restore a normal heart beat....

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sets specific guidelines that prohibit the devices being implanted if the patient has received other types of treatments or procedures prior to the surgery, according to Rebekah Plowman, a partner in the Atlanta office of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP and chair of the firm’s fraud and abuse practice. 

“The government found it was pretty easy to go out and use data mining techniques to see if they or any other hospital had billed for codes associated with a heart attack or other [prohibited] procedure,” [Emphasis & color mine] said Plowman. “Then they send a letter to the hospital asking why we shouldn’t collect the fees we paid back from you.”

The NCD criteria prohibits hospitals implanting the device in patients who have had a heart attack within the last 40 days or undergone procedures such as balloon angioplasty or open-heart surgery within the past 90 days. [Again, emphasis & color mine] [Really?  They just assume that every patient fits this template does not get this procedure?]

...

With the potential for losses so high, hospitals have an incentive to fight the claims.

“What hospitals are doing is hiring lawyers to put everything under attorney-client privilege and then hiring consultants to review the medical records,” said Plowman.

...

Critics of the CMS review contend that its guidelines for when a defibrillator can be implanted, which were issued in 2003, are out of date and haven’t kept up with research. Others point to evidence that doctors implant too many of the devices without regard to evidence-based guidelines that result in medical complications.

A recent Duke University study found that surgeons often strayed from the evidence-based guidelines for when defibrillators should be implanted. Those cases that did not follow the professional recommendations were more likely to produce in-hospital complications and even death.

...

Read more: Georgia hospitals facing federal investigation | Atlanta Business Chronicle 

Maybe Sarah Palin is not so stupid after all......