Polosi's Health Care Bill

Health Reform Cheat Sheet
The House of Representative’s version of health-care reform will cost more than the $894 bn 10-year price tag cited by the Congressional Budget Office.-

That’s because the CBO and Congress do not address human responses to legislation. Tax something more, you ultimately take in less in taxes. Penalize a company, and it finds ways to dodge the penalty.-

And lawmakers have put in this unintended consequence: The individual premium costs in public option to take care of the poor are actually higher than other offerings.-

That’s right, the CBO says the public plan’s premiums are higher than the premiums in the public exchanges, undermining the House’s claim that it will attract 9 mn enrollees by 2019 and result in a two-thirds decrease in the number of uninsured adults in the U.S.-

Use the following as a cheat sheet in coming days as the health-care reform bill wends its way through Congress. The cheat sheet provides an X-ray to this impenetrably dense bill and the CBO’s scoring. The unintended consequences from this bill will be manifold.-

You’ll see the CBO is struggling mightily to score these legislative phantasms, noting its work is not done and that its estimates are “subject to substantial uncertainty.”-

Watch for Congressional statements that, while technically accurate, will also keep you barefoot and clueless on health reform, as the layers upon layers of provisions make the reform bill as transparent as a bucket of tar. And which means the resulting deficit spending from this bill will only add to a U.S. debt load now big enough to block out the sun.-

Keep this in mind when you see the tax revenue the CBO and Congress claim the bill will raise to cover the costs. Both the CBO and Congress tend to not take into account the fact that individuals and companies reorganize their lives to avoid paying taxes.--

Health-care tax, or penalties, or whatever they call it will just mean people will carry on avoidance schemes, which means less revenues. Tax the rich, they’ll shelter it. Tax the Cadillac health insurance plans, insurers won’t offer them.-

Because the CBO and Congress generally do not take into account human behavior when scoring a bill (they use what’s called the “static,” not the “dynamic,” scoring model), the revenue estimates from the CBO and Congress on past tax legislation have been off by a factor of $150 bn or more.-

Also, the reform bill’s taxes are not indexed to inflation, so as more middle-class pay rises into those brackets, more middle- class people will be hurt.-

Here are the details:-

The New Spending-

It includes $1.1 tn in new spending over 10 years: $425 bn increases to Medicaid and SCHIP; $605 bn on subsidies for the poor to buy insurance; $57 bn in spending on primary care increases; and $34 bn in new spending on public health initiatives.-

The New Costs-

The bill’s costs are offset by a new tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions estimated to increase federal revenues by $572 bn; and $168 bn in collections of penalties paid by individuals if they don't buy insurance ($33 bn estimated) and employers ($135 bn) if they don’t buy health insurance for their workers.-

To pay for the bill, the House is also counting on other undefined spending changes. That includes fee cuts for nonphysicians, meaning other health care providers, of $229 bn, and Medicare Advantage cuts of $170 bn ($245 bn in Medicare cuts to doctors over ten years has since been nixed; that cost is now moving into other government budget line items). It’s also counting on wringing tens of billions of dollars in waste and fraud out of the system to pay for the bill.-

The Reality Check That Bounced-

Ok, think this through. Higher taxes on the rich have historially not delivered the revenues promised because the rich shelter their income, IRS data show.-

And the pool of taxpayers that would supposedly toss off all this tax revenue is not that vast and deep--the 5.4% surtax on singles earnings $500,000 in the house bill, married couples earning $1 mn--is only 494,967, based on 2007 IRS data, the last year for which data is available, notes William Ahern of the Tax Foundation.-

Tax cuts can deliver revenues -- the Clinton tax cuts on estates and capital gains delivered more revenues than promised tax revenues from the tax hikes on the rich, according to IRS data.-

And do you really believe that future Congresses over the next 10 years will hang tough and make the $399 bn in total reimbursement cuts to hospitals, other providers, and Medicare Advantage, each year for 10 years straight?-

Remember, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act tried to chase down this exact strategy, but Congress undid those cuts and reimbursed providers anyway.-

And watch out for the promises to cut waste and fraud out of the system that the House is counting on from the American Medical Association and hospitals.-

You really think the AMA can corral the 135,000 active doctors in its membership to deliver on these promises? Or that the nation’s 5,700 hospitals will all fall in line?-

How Employers Will React-

The “play-or-pay” requirement on employers says they would either have to offer “qualifying” insurance to their employees and contribute a substantial share toward the premiums, or pay a fee to the federal government that would generally equal 8% of their payroll.-

It’s an easy choice for employers: Lay off and not hire workers if the insurance costs are too high, or just pay the extra 8% payroll tax and dump workers on the public plan. Which means more costs to the U.S. taxpayer.-

State Taxes May Rise-

Moreover, the federal funding for Medicaid to take care of extra enrollees will only cover 70% of the state’s costs. The rest the states have to pay for. That means state taxes rise.-

Public Option’s Not So Cheap Premiums-

The primary rationale espoused by Democrats for the government-run health care plan is that it would drive down costs by providing a lower cost option than private plans (and thus force the greedy insurance companies to lower their “exorbitant” rates to compete), notes Fox News analyst James Farrell.-

But will the poor really sign up for the public option since its premiums are higher than the average private industry plan in the new proposed insurance exchanges? How would the public option drive down insurance costs through competition if its premiums are higher than the average private industry plan in the exchanges?-

The CBO finds that under the House plan, the government-run plan would actually charge higher premiums:-

"That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges."-
The Opt Out is Not an Option-

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the health-care bill will have a public option and a way for states to opt out of the public option (the House bill does not include an opt-out ).-

It’s a charade — taxpayers in states that opt out will get taxed anyway to pay for the bill. And who in each state gets to decide to trigger the opt out escape hatch? Voters? State legislators? -

The DMV?-

A churlish reaction would be this: couldn't the states turn around and say they want to opt out of the fed’s unfunded mandates —like the expansion of Medicaid to pay for the health reform bill, where they’ll have to pony up 30%?-

The Arizona Legislature already passed the Health Care Freedom Act, which places an initiative on the 2010 ballot allowing citizens to vote to decide whether the state should opt out of the entire health care reform bill, notes Darrell M. West, vice president and director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. Other states are considering similar legislation, West says.-

And West wonders if unhealthy people will migrate to states with a public option if their own jurisdiction opts out of the national system. States may be tempted to establish residency requirements for health care the way they did for welfare, he says, possibly making it more difficult for the uninsured to get coverage in those areas.-

Also, if states don’t like congressional decisions on gun control, climate change or immigration, will state legislators demand an opt-out? “If this were 1965 and there were a Medicare opt-out, it is conceivable we would have ended up with two-thirds of the country having Medicare, while one-third did not,” West says.-

AARP - ASSOCIATION AGAINST RETIRED PEOPLE

Have you really paid attention to the AARP TV ads. The part that picked up my ears was where AARP states they will even cover your visit to a specialist without prior approval. I have no doubt the will. But have you considered medicare. You go to see a medical specialist. AARP covers say $400.00. You are happy as a bug in the rug, but then bad news hits, medicare is not going to cover the specialist because you didn't get prior approval from them and if you did try they may turned you down and now you are on the hook for a few thousand dollars you have to pay. A little misleading ad don't you think?
-
Two points to remember, first AARP is in for the high profits they make selling health insurance to those covered by medicare. So keep that in mind when you watch their ads, what are they really hiding? And secondly, don't just jump into anything until you really understand what it is, what it offers and how much it will cost. This is true for AARP and your friendly health care specialist at Capital Hill.
-
People, despite what congress is telling you, in the end you will be stuck with a national health care plan you will not want and one that is going to cost you a lot. Already one part of all the health care plans being offered up by both the house and senate will head to the Supreme Court. A few states are already considering not making it mandatory for people to purchase health care. This flies in the face in what congress will be coming out with. I'll side on states rights on this one. Just remember, the states gave the federal government certain rights via the constitution. Anything not in the constitution is left for the individual states to deal with.

By DAVE COLLINS, Associated Press Writer Dave Collins, Associated Press Writer – Sun Oct 4, 3:14 pm ET
-
HARTFORD, Conn. – The nation's nursing homes are perilously close to laying off workers, cutting services — possibly even closing — because of a perfect storm wallop from the recession and deep federal and state government spending cuts, industry experts say.
-
A Medicare rate adjustment that cuts an estimated $16 billion in nursing home funding over the next 10 years was enacted at week's end by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — on top of state-level cuts or flat-funding that already had the industry reeling.
-
And Congress is debating slashing billions more in Medicare funding as part of health care reform.
-
Add it all up, and the nursing home industry is headed for a crisis, industry officials say.
-
"We can foresee the possibility of nursing homes having to close their doors," said David Hebert, a senior vice president at the American Health Care Association. "I certainly foresee that we'll have to let staff go."
-
The funding crisis comes as the nation's baby boomers age ever closer toward needing nursing home care. The nation's 16,000 nursing homes housed 1.85 million people last year, up from 1.79 million in 2007, U.S. Census Bureau figures show.
-
Already this year, 24 states have cut funding for nursing home care and other health services needed by low-income people who are elderly or disabled, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research firm based in Washington, D.C.
-
Some facilities are now closed because of money problems — including four in Connecticut — and others have laid off workers because of what industry officials say are inadequate Medicaid reimbursement rates. Medicare cuts are troubling, they say, because the higher Medicare reimbursements have been used to compensate for the lower Medicaid rates.
-
In Griswold, Conn., the community's only nursing home shut down earlier this year because of rising costs and an inability to pay for $4.9 million in needed renovations for the 90-bed facility.
-
"A 92-year-old woman was screaming and crying as she was loaded into the ambulance, saying 'This is my home,'" Griswold First Selectman Philip Anthony said. His 88-year-old mother was a resident of the same home at the time.
-
Anthony sought and found a new facility for his mother, but she died of pneumonia before the Griswold Health and Rehabilitation Center closed in the spring.
-
"To be hit with a sudden and deliberate closure like this, it just drained the heart right out of you," Anthony said.
-
Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell and state lawmakers gave no Medicaid rate increases to nursing homes in the state last fiscal year and kept the funding flat for the next two years.
-
The Griswold home was one of four nursing homes in the state that have closed since December because of financial problems, a higher rate than usual, said Deborah Chernoff, a spokeswoman for District 1199 of the New England Health Care Employees Union in Connecticut, which represents more than 20,000 health care workers in the state.
-
"We're really teetering on the edge of what we see as the collapse of the long-term care system," she said.
-
Chernoff said many of Connecticut's 240 or so nursing homes have been reducing workers' hours to deal with money problems, while two are in bankruptcy now.
-
Also this year across the country:
-
• The Motion Picture & Television Fund said in January it would close a hospital and nursing home in Woodland Hills, Calif., founded to care for actors and other entertainment industry workers, because of financial losses.
-
• The Westchester Medical Center in suburban New York said it would close a nursing home and cut 400 jobs to deal with Medicaid and other fund cuts.
-
• The Dove Health Care nursing home in Glendale, Wis., near Milwaukee, closed this summer because of heavy debt.
-
• Medicaid reimbursement rates to nursing homes were cut this year by Rhode Island (5 percent); Michigan (4 percent) and Florida (3 percent).
-
• Washington state legislators whacked nursing home funding by $93 million for the next two fiscal years.
-
Gary Weeks, executive director of the Washington Health Care Association, said some of the organization's 400 assisted living and nursing homes have laid off workers. Some will not survive, he said.
-
At the request of Weeks' association, a federal judge in July issued a temporary restraining order blocking the cuts because state officials didn't do a required analysis of how the reductions would affect care quality and access.
-
"There's a lot of pain going on everywhere, but it's clearly a crisis in long-term care," Weeks said.
-
"You're going to find that some folks go out of business," he said. "Some will look for more Medicare patients — Medicare pays more than Medicaid."
-
In Washington, D.C., health care interests are resisting President Barack Obama's plan to pay for his health care overhaul by slowing Medicaid and Medicare spending. Obama wants to trim $313 billion from the two programs over 10 years.
-
It's not clear exactly how all the health spending cuts will affect nursing homes.
-
A University of Pittsburgh study earlier this year found nearly 1,800 nursing homes nationwide closed from 1999 to 2005, about 2 percent each year.
-
One of the study's authors, health policy and management professor Nick Castle, said the annual closure rate is rising, for reasons that include inadequate Medicaid reimbursement rates and the push for more home and community care.
-
"It's come to a head recently with state budgets being in such jeopardy that they're cutting in all areas," Castle said.
-
The federal stimulus package approved in February includes $87 billion in Medicaid funding to help states. But Connecticut and several other states are using a loophole in the legislation to divert the money to budget items unrelated to health care, according to a congressional study.
-
On average, Medicaid payments by states to nursing homes fell short by $12 per patient, per day last year — nearly $4.2 billion in unreimbursed costs for Medicaid-allowed expenses, according to the AHCA.
-
In New York City, the Metropolitan Jewish Health System laid off about 200 of its 1,000 employees at three nursing homes in Brooklyn because the state cut Medicaid funding by 10 percent to 14 percent, said President and Chief Executive Eli Feldman.

-

"We understand there's a recession/depression," Feldman said. "But this is not health reform ... and the victims are basically the people who live in the facilities. The Legislature basically says, 'Too sick, too old, too bad."

OBAMACARE

Now that the various healthcare plans are being reduced to print, the financial details are emerging and with them a fundamental conclusion is becoming evident: The Obama plan is a giant tax increase for much of the American people (not just the rich).
-
Start with the mandate that falls on those whose welfare is the supposed object of the entire program — the uninsured. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average uninsured person or family will have to pay between 15 and 20 percent of his or their total income on health insurance (counting premiums, deductibles and co-payments) before any of the subsidy in the Baucus bill kicks in. Even in the more generous House bill, the tab that the uninsured must pay is very, very high.
-
Most uninsured would likely be quite happy to avoid paying this much of their income for health insurance. But they will be forced to shell out the money under the program. Others would want catastrophic coverage (which for the young would likely not be too costly) but the Obama program requires comprehensive insurance that is costly to satisfy the government requirement.
-
Having spent the entire campaign speaking about “affordable” coverage, it turns out the program is not at all affordable, but a massive new tax on the average uninsured American.
-
Then there is the tax on health insurance premiums that is to finance about a quarter of the subsidy for the uninsured. This tax, billed as only to be levied on “gold-plated” policies, will, in fact, reach down to the average American. The Baucus bill specifies that the tax of 35 percent would be put on all premiums over $8,000 for an individual and on proportionately higher premiums for families. Current estimates are that about one-tenth of the current health insurance policies would be taxable. But the $8,000 premium level that will trigger coverage is not indexed for inflation, let alone for medical inflation, which typically runs twice as high. ObamaCare will take effect in 2013. By then, the percentage of Americans subject to the tax will doubtless expand dramatically. Indeed, this trigger is a new Alternative Minimum Tax waiting to happen. As inflation pushes more and more Americans into tax eligibility, it will become a universal health insurance excise tax of 35 percent. While the tax will be imposed on health insurers and employers, it will, obviously, be passed along to the policyholders.
-
So if you are insured, you will increasingly have to pay 35 percent more for the privilege. And if you are uninsured, you will have to pay one-fifth of your income in premiums, deductibles and co-payments before any subsidy kicks in.
-
And then there is the final piece of the puzzle — the $500 billion cut in Medicare that will pay for the bulk of the subsidy under the bill. We are literally slicing services to the elderly in order to transfer healthcare to others. Obama’s claim that only “waste and inefficiency” in Medicare will be cut is, at best, disingenuous. Most of the cuts will be in reimbursement for doctors and hospitals. That will lead to less care, shorter office visits, fewer tests, fewer surgeries and less care. And it will lead to fewer doctors. As a result, a survey by the Investor’s Business Daily indicates that 45 percent of all doctors would “consider retiring or closing their practices” if the Obama bill passes. The result will be a greater scarcity of medical services, even as the patient load expands by at least 30 million people.
-
Each of these fiscal pieces is movable. The left will pressure Obama to increase the subsidy to the uninsured. But that will necessitate raising the Medicare cut borne by the elderly or increasing the tax on health insurance policies — or adding to the deficit. Any of these options will alienate moderate senators. Balancing these competing priorities only works if the taxpayers don’t know what is going on.
-
If the average middle-income American family realizes that it will have to pay one-third more for health insurance or the uninsured learn that they will have to pay a fifth of their income to get insurance, they will make their dissatisfaction felt by their Democratic senators.
-All of which begs the fundamental question: How willing are Democratic congressmen to commit political suicide? Are they willing to lose the elderly and to antagonize the uninsured as the health insurance cops chase them around the block? When does JFK’s comment kick in: “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much”?

FEHBP Premium Increase Huge Burden for Federal Annuitants

National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) President Margaret L. Baptiste today expressed concern that federal annuitants and workers will be burdened by the large premium increases announced in the federal employee/retiree health insurance program. “The overall average Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) premium increase of 8.8 percent for 2010 will be difficult for federal annuitants to shoulder in a year when no cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is expected and when the federal employee pay raise is anticipated to be minimal,” Baptiste said.
Baptiste is also troubled that the share paid by employees and retirees in the program’s most popular plan (Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard option) will jump by 12.4 percent for family plans and 15.1 percent for self-only coverage.
“A 12-percent increase in our program’s most popular plan is bad enough in a no-COLA year for retirees and when workers are expected to receive a nominal pay increase,” said Baptiste, “what’s worse is that this comes at a time when some in Congress effectively want to end the FEHBP and enroll federal workers in an exchange system.”
Last week, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-IA, introduced an amendment to the Senate Finance Committee’s health reform bill that would require members of Congress and federal workers to leave the FEHBP and join health exchanges. NARFE opposes this amendment.

FEHBP Premiums Could Have Been Lower

“We recognize that the 2010 rate hike was within the range of increases in other large group health insurance programs and that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is serious about reducing prescription drug costs. However, FEHBP premiums could have been lowered if it were not for OPM’s decision to reaffirm the previous administration’s policy of declining a payment available to other public and private employers who provide drug coverage as generous as Medicare’s,” Baptiste said. “Once again, this year, OPM and the Office of Management and Budget left $1 billion on the table -- a subsidy available to and accessed by private employers in the marketplace, which could be used to lower worker and annuitant premium costs,” she said.
The 2003 Medicare reform law provides such employers a payment as an incentive to retain their retiree drug coverage. A 2007 Government Accountability Office report found that premium growth in one of the largest FEHBP plans with many older enrollees could have been 3.5 to 4 percent lower in 2006 had the payment been accessed. And, it could have reduced overall FEHBP premiums for the year by more than 2 percent.

Medicare Part B Relief for Federal Annuitants

“While the FEHBP rate increase is bad news, we can take some comfort in the House’s approval on September 24 of NARFE-backed legislation (H.R. 3631) which would protect all federal annuitants – including retirees and survivors who are not eligible to receive Social Security – from the 2010 Medicare Part B premium increase,” Baptiste said. “NARFE worked tirelessly behind the scenes on this legislation for the past three months.”

HARRY REID SAYS SCREW YOU AMERICA I'M GETTING RE-ELECTED

HARRY REID IS THE POST CHILD FOR WHAT A POLITICIAN IS ALL ABOUT.

Reid has just demonstrated that what ever it takes to get re-elected is fair even if it means that people in other states have to suffer for it. Reid has demonstrated that it's not about what is good for the country, but what is good for him politically.
_
The Baucus Bill health care plan now includes an amendment at Reid's request that will exempt Nevada for 5 years from having to increase taxes to cover the cuts to medicaid that the Baucus Bill includes. Three other states had similar amendments made to the Baucus bill. The results of these amendments will mean greater cuts to the other 46 states which will mean high taxes in those states to maintain their current medicaid programs, this will raises taxes an additional 4% to cover the four states that are exempt.
_
If the 2010 elections were held today, Reid would not return to office. He needs to boost his polls number. Being the scum politician he is, he's turning on the rest of the country causing increase in their taxes so that he can get his poll numbers up. Reid cares less about the country. It's more important for him to get elected no matter who he hurts in other states. If you are resident of Nevada you need to turn this self centered politician out of office. Don't suffer the embarrassment of voting him back into office. If Reid gives the finger to the rest of America what makes you think he won't turn on Nevada voters.

HUMANA LETTER

For those that wish to read the Humana letter that currently has congresss going off the deep end, here's a URL you can get it from. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/humanamailer.pdf

AARP - ASSOCIATION AGAINST RETIRED PEOPLE

FROM www.60plus.com


AARP Members Flocking To 60 Plus

8/19/2009 11:29:00 AM

Internet Donations Refill 60 Plus Coffers; Second Printing Of Aarp Bumper Stickers

Statement by 60 Plus President Jim Martin

As 60 Plus speaks out against Obamacare, thousands of disgruntled AARPites are leaving in disgust. The thousands of dollars in unsolicited donations they're sending to 60 Plus are small change to the Billion Dollar Goliath (fueled to a large degree by $1 billion in tax dollars over the years) but it encourages us at 60 Plus. Having spent nearly $2 million on a national TV campaign, we're re-loading. On CSPAN the first caller asked who funded us? I disappointed the caller by telling her over 270,000 concerned citizens but NOT the Insurance lobby nor big PHARMA.



After my stint then on CSPAN other callers to the program said 60 Plus is a front for Pharma. Of course PHARMA has announced it is spending $150 million to promote Obamacare. And Organizing for America is a front for the White House, the re-branded from the Organizing for Obama campaign, and of course Acorn receives tax payer dollars some being spent for the 15 or so investigations in states against their activities. And they didn't like it when I answered the AARP spokesman who proudly announced that, after all, the AMA has endorsed the plan, and I pointed out the AMA is a shell, more than 80% of Docs don't belong. It’s other groups like the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons represented by Kathryn Serkes. No wonder we at 60 Plus are in the CROSSHAIRS of Obama and Company. When Dick Durbin explains that meetings are not productive, he is probably shivering, recalling old people chasing Danny Rostenkowski down the streets of Chicago.
The 60 Plus Association is not a Johnny-come-lately to the exposure of AARP's liberal big government policy. In 1996, 60 Plus President Jim Martin, with Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), testified before a Congressional panel in the House about the AARP's taxpayer-subsidized enterprise. Senator Simpson held his own hearing earlier. The AARP has been hitting 60 Plus ever since Martin formed it in 1992 as a conservative counter.



In 1995, since a picture can be worth a thousand words, 60 Plus produced a bumper sticker that reads, AARP: Association Against Retired Persons, now drawing attention. 60 Plus is, because of the demand, printing the 2009 version of our bumper sticker which will be selling like hot cakes shortly.



AARP is the eight hundred pound gorilla of associations supposedly representing senior citizens. In actuality, the organization is a huge fraud on seniors, profiting by commission from a variety of money making schemes, receiving millions of taxpayer dollars, and promoting programs of big government and high taxes which hurt, not help, seniors. AARP had an unusual origin but one that gave it a tremendous boost in members and money. In 1947, Ethel Percy Andrus, a principal, established the National Retired Teachers Association (NRTA) and, in an unique partnership with insurance executive Leonard Davis, formed AARP in 1958. Davis provided insurance policies for NRTA members, and made a personal (though highly controversial) fortune for himself in the process.



Charles R. Morris, examining the history of AARP in his book AARP: America’s Most Powerful Lobby and the Clash of Generations (New York: Random House/Time- Life Books, 1996), revealed that for much of its existence AARP was under the control of Davis thus "operating as a sales network to hawk very high-priced insurance and a host of other Davis-created products to old people." (p. 10) A source of controversy, Davis abandoned his contacts with AARP in the early 1980s. Clearly, Ms Andrus was well-intentioned in wanting to provide much needed, low-cost insurance to retiring teachers, and clearly her original philosophy that the AARP would seek no federal largesse is to be admired and applauded. But somewhere down the line, probably after her tenure, the lure of the almighty dollar proved too much and AARP was under a microscope in the 1970’s and 1980’s when Mr. Davis was sent packing to Florida, with much of his, according to press reports, ‘$160 million fortune intact.’ But the full extent of the powerful empire built by AARP did not come to light until hearings sponsored by then U.S. Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY). The investigation of the finances of AARP provided a major bombshell in 1995.



The organization is a tax-exempt group which collects federal funds, about $86 million annually, from direct grants for such programs as tax counseling for the elderly to providing jobs for seniors under the "Senior Environmental Employment Program." Simpson rightfully raised the question over the use of a non-profit status for a group which makes millions selling its members medicine, insurance, and other products.



Senator Simpson’s hearings shined the light on an organization which claims to represent senior citizens but in reality represents big government, helped by taxpayer subsidies.
AARP is a large money-making machine of Fortune 500 proportions. The Internal Revenue Services even looked into the AARP non-profit status and after some "negotiations" the AARP agreed to pay $135 million ‘in lieu of taxes’ on its money-making schemes conducted between 1985-1993. An additional payment of $15 million was made in 1994. In the latter year, AARP paid the U.S. Postal Service $2.8 million to settle accusations that it improperly used its non-profit privilege. The great irony is that these payments were made to the IRS and the U.S. Postal Service (AARP caught trying to circumvent the law) at the same time the group was receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers over those years. AARP can operate on a low membership annual dues of $8 per member because of the profits it gets from its other activities and federal funding. In fact, the $8 is called a ‘loss leader item’ in the world of business. It gets you in the door at a nominal amount, but profits are amassed with the products it sells you. The Wall Street Journal summed it up well in the title of an editorial (June 23, 1995) about the AARP and other groups who thrive on federal funds such as the National Council of Senior Citizens and The National Council on Aging: "Welfare for Lobbyists."



AARP has been consistent in its efforts to promote more federal spending and bigger government. They were active promoters of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act (1988) which became law; and when seniors found out the outrageous bill they were paying for this new government bonanza, their protests became so strong that Congress took the unheard of action toward a seniors program: it repealed it the next year (1989). AARP found seniors picketing their headquarters with "Down with AARP!" signs because of the organization’s support for it. (Opposition was so strong that one can still recall pictures of one of the architects of this bill, then Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Dan Rostenkowski, fleeing senior citizens in his solid Chicago Democratic district who chased after him in protest after a meeting in August of 1989!)



The AARP opposed a balanced budget constitutional amendment. They opposed efforts to slow down the rapid growth of Medicare, indifferent to the need of saving this program for seniors. They oppose reform of Social Security which would save the system and allow individuals to have individual retirement accounts. They consistently push for more spending on entitlement programs. They deny the Social Security system is in trouble and propose as ‘salvation’ for the program the usual prescription of big government groups: raise taxes.
And how well do they represent their members? When President Bill Clinton proposed increasing taxation on Social Security recipients above a certain income level, the AARP was strangely silent and, instead of opposing this hardship on seniors, urged approval of a budget and tax deal which would add these taxes.



As a result of its political stance, the AARP has been losing members who protest their liberal slant but they continue an aggressive campaign of recruiting new members (even lowering the eligibility age for membership to age 50). Their magazine, Modern Maturity, has a circulation over twenty million, making it larger than the combined circulation of some current news magazines. (Besides Modern Maturity and the AARP Bulletin, it has about seventeen separate newsletters and a large number of videos, special studies, and pamphlets aimed at targeted groups.) Still the 33 million members of AARP represents real political clout, a leverage used to promote big government, encourage more government spending, and opposing all efforts to reduce government spending, all to the detriment not only of seniors living on fixed incomes but for all taxpayers.



The irony is that most AARP members in the 50 states have only a vague notion of AARP’s political agenda which tilts decidedly to the left and most AARPites join for the aggressively hawked benefits. It’s hard to resist a sales pitch that touts AARP’s buying power based on 33 million members, until Senator Simpson’s hearings focused on the fact that not only did AARP not beat competitive insurance plans but made a tidy profit, of hundreds of millions on all the products they offer their members as ‘the lowest available price’ thanks to an apparent purchasing power due its massive membership.



AARP has a number of state groups or affiliates assisting them in their mission. Horace Deets, an employee of over twenty years, receives a salary of $292,000 (more than the pay of members of the President’s Cabinet!) plus $46,000 in a benefits package while 19 other AARP executives receive over $100,000 each. At the latest count, the AARP headquarters office had a staff of 1,752 which can be averaged to about 3.27 ‘lobbyists’ for each member of Congress. (There are an additional 500 technical employees in Hartford, Connecticut, who exclusively process auto claims for AARP.)



Are all seniors groups out for big government and taxpayer funds? Not so.
The 60 Plus Association stands for free enterprise, less government and less taxes for seniors and neither takes nor seeks federal grant money. We have been called by one source "an increasingly influential lobbying group for the elderly…often viewed as the conservative alternative to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).”
Taxpayers –and especially senior citizens—must realize that the AARP does not represent the best interest of people but serves as a mouthpiece for those forces pushing for expanded government. Nonprofit organizations with their own political agenda of liberalism which receive federal funds should not be subsidized by taxpayers for lobbying. President Thomas Jefferson said it so well: “to compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” It is time an aroused electorate put a stop to this abuse.

MY COUNTRY DIED ON ME

Some facts that my help you decide on a government run health care plan. 45% of the doctors now practicing have stated that they will retire if a national health care plan is put in place. 50% of our doctors do not accept medicad. Dropping half a trillion dollars cut out of medicare will force rationed health care for our seniors.
-
Texas, California and Mississippi have past tort reform which has had the effect of driving down health insurance premiums by 40%+, but due to the number of politicians in Washington being past lawyers and those that were not but having taken large sums of money from lawyers, there is no way for a national tort reform being enacted. Taking off interstate trade restrictions on health insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines would open the door to competition which always as the effect of driving down prices.
-
There are many things that can be done to make health insurance affordable for everyone, but congress is bent on not listening to the major of people who do not want congress to pass a plan that will drive up health cost. Congress and the White House Palace thinks we cannot think for ourselves. It's a sign that our government has lost complete touch with those that elected them. One WWII vet I know said "I was willing to give up my life fighting for my country, but I never thought I would see the day my country died on me."

BAUCUS HEALTH CARE PLAN

The Baucus health care plan will cost $856 billion over 10 years. It will be paid for by a half trillion dollar cut in medicare and taxes and penalties on insurance companies. In addition to this, any family that elects not to purchase any health care will be fined $3,800 per year. Illegal aliens will not be able join, individuals will have to provide a name and social security number which will be verified by the Social Security Administration. The plan provides tax credits to middle class and low income families to help purchase health care. These are the basics of the plan.

Now lets look at the basics and ask some questions. The cost, $856 billion dollars. What will the effect be on medicare where huge cuts will be made to help pay for the new plan? There is no mention of the effects. Will services be cut? Will premiums for medicare go up? Will co-pay go up? There is no mention of this. It's important that we now the effects on medicare that will affect you or your parents. Don't forget the babyboomers will not start hitting medicare until 2011. What will the new taxes and penalties do to existing health care we have? Like any business, any new costs are passed along to the consumers. Will there be enough taxes credits for the middle class to cover the increase in their existing health care? (Sidebar) insurance companies will have to accept new applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions, no language is given in the Baucus plan that says an insurance companies have to cover an existing conditions, the plan only says the insurance companies have to accept those with pre-existing conditions. And what stops an insurance company from denying treatment for an existing condition or any condition they feel was contributed by the existing condition? This in itself could make any insurance plan worthless.

Illegal aliens are not stupid. Keep in mind that any child born in the US becomes a citizen of the US and as such the illegal parents can get a social security number for their US born child and thus can get national health care. No mention if made of this.

If a family elects not to purchase health insurance they will be fined $3,800 per year. Does this include those that are currently without work and depend on unemployment and need every penny they have to just meet their basics needs? Something to think about. Or will it be better just to not purchase any health insurance and just pay the penalty while still getting health care services paid for via a government or state option that will cost more than $3,800? If given the choice I would rather take $3,800 out of my savings and pay that for back surgery in lieu of what my share would be after my insurance had paid.

Folks, an effort does need to be made to get everyone health care in some form, but we need to weigh all the options for doing so. Would it better for the government to step into the health care business or would it better for legislation be passed to change the existing health care industry? Here is a point to consider. The states of Texas and California passed tort reform, the effect on those in Texas was a 30% drop in premiums costs, in California it was 40%. Speaking for myself I would love to see a drop of 30-40% in what I pay on premiums. In New Jersey there basically is only one health company providing insurance. State employees are locked into this. What if those of New Jersey could cross state lines and obtain health insurance from a company located in another state that was just as good or better than what they currently have and cheaper? The US Government by the Constitution regulates interstate trade which health care companies would fall under if they provide insurance across state lines. Why does the government restrict health insurance companies from crossing state lines? A good question to ask your politicians. The more competition you have for anything, the cheaper the price will be. That's simple economics, it's what made WalMat so big. When WalMart started offering $4.00 prescriptions other stores followed with similar pricing. There are other things that can be changed by simple regulation and not a new government run system. One last point, once the government gets involved with anything, the cost go up which is ultimately passed down to us. Remember, politicians are not the sharpest pencils in the box.

What say you, hit the keyboard, but don't tell me, tell Washington how you feel. You do not have to agree with anything you read, but do need to sound off in how you feel.

Health cost crisis | detnews.com | The Detroit News

Health cost crisis detnews.com The Detroit News

Shared via AddThis

HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES

The White House and Nancy Polosi have both demonized the health insurance companies without really giving a reason why. I imagine the every increasing cost for health insurance is the main point. Put what has the insurance industry say about, nothing that I could find. So it leaves it up to us to try to look at both sides. We know what the political side is, so that just leaves the insurance side. Here is my take on the insurance.

The last house I bought I naturally had insurance for it. The knew the monthly note would include a fixed mortgage rate, a fixed principle. I also knew that it would include insurance that would continue to rise through the years and I knew why, the value of the house would increase as the years past, that's the advantage of buying a home. Now lets apply this to health insurance. What could cause health insurance to go up. The first thing that comes to mind is GE (General Electric). GE comes out with much improved MRI machine, the cost for which is double that of their last machine, but for hospitals it's a must piece of equipment. The hospital gets buys one, now how does the hospital pay for it, it does like any business does, the hospital increase the cost for an MRI, this in turned is passed on to some one's health insurance. The insurance company is a business, they thus pass on the new cost to their customers in the form of higher insurance cost. Apply this example to doctors and the lack of tort reform, the doctors pass their insurance cost to your insurance company who then passes it on to you in the form of higher insurance premiums. Add in a lot of other costs that hospitals and doctors incur that they pass on to health insurance companies and you can see the effects. So are health insurance companies the demons. Something to think about.

What say you, give your comments.

HEALTH CARE TRIGGER

Well gang there is another attempt to get a government run single payer health care plan. Here's the new twist. Take Alabama, only one insurance company is providing Alabama with health care insurance. That means no competition, which in turn triggers the national health care system top step in with a government run plan. What does the government consider competition, simple one that the private sector will never meet and thus one that causes a government take over.

_

Don't you love how devious the minds of our elected politicians can get?

So what say you, have a comment?

MAX BAUCUS HAS 60+ PAYING 5 TIMES AS MUCH FOR HEALTH CARE

Senator Max Baucus (D), Mont. has put forth a health care plan. His proposed government run national health care plan includes fines for anyone failing to buy health insurance, up to $3,800. His plan also calls for 60-year-olds paying 5 times as much for a policy as 20-year olds.
-
Granted the older one gets the more medical attention is needed, but if one's health insurance is balanced, the 60-year-old would be paying the same as the 20-year-old. To charge more for a policy as one grows older is nothing more than penalizing one for just growing old.
_
Look at it from this point of view, as a 20-year-old you purchase a health policy, you pay on it for years without every having the need to use it. Then the time comes you find that you have a health problem that will be expensive, but then again you did paid years for a health policy that you never used and now decades later you are calling in your health policy to cover you current medical problem. Here's a different way to look at it, for decades you invested in a health care policy, no different than putting money in a savings account. Then the time comes when you want draw out some of the dividends to cover a medical problem.
-
Higher education does not always translate into higher intellect, this as evidenced by the majority of our nationally elected leaders.
-
What say you, leave your comment.

BRITISH HEALTH CARE

I'm on my 4th book of amateur female detectives that center around small villages in England. In two of the books there was made mention of British health care. The following is take from a book titled "Agatha Raisin and the Wellspring of Death" as written by M.C Beaton first published in July 1998, from page 63 - "It'll be worth it. My Bert said, he said, no creature should have to endure the pain I've had. But you know what the National Health Service is like. My turn'll come round when I'm in my grave." Do we want National Health Care here in the US?

Here is another thought, the US government now puts out over 1 trillion dollars a year to cover medicare. In 10 years that's over 10 trillion dollars. In the latest released health care bill out of the house, it states that it will take 2 trillion dollars to kick start a national health care program. The white house says it will cost over a ten year period 1 trillion dollars. Something wrong with this picture don't you think? A trillion a year for medicare compared to a trillion for a ten year period for national health care, something doesn't add up. Wonder why congress has low poll numbers! What say you?

WHO ARE THE HEALTH CARE ORGANIZERS

I've watched some of the townhall meetings. One of the things that strikes me are the signs. When I looked at the crowds I noted that those for a national health care plan were holding signs that just came out of the printer's shop, while those that were opposed to a national health care plan were holding up signs that they hand printed at their homes. Which group is the organized one? Next time you see the "Health Care Reform Now" bus, ask who may be on the bus who are the organizers, I'm sure they will tell you it's those that are opposed to a health care plan.

RIGHT WING DOMESTIC TERRORISTS

According to the White House website, http://www.barackobama.com/, those opposed to national health care are left wing domestic terrorists. It's sad to read such things in a White House managed website. Obama's push for a bipartisan passed national health care bill becomes more difficult when you calling the those you want to help support the bill terrorists. Does Obama even know what is being put forth on his sponsored website, remember the buck stops at the President's desk, he has to accept responsibility. What say you about this?

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE TO INCLUDE IRS LAW

The politicians are at it again. This time it's Charlie Rangle, representative from New York, you remember Charlie, he owes the government $3,000,000 in back taxes. Well good old Charlie thought it a good idea to put a provision in the National Health Care plan to cover those that owe back taxes, he wants to double the fines along with a few other penalties. This represents the height of hypocrisy. I think dear old Charlie has lost it. But then maybe somewhere in the back of his little brain he knows this and thus he thinks he better have a good health care plan, one that will cover the cost of plugging the hole in his head.
-
This goes to show you that any bill is fair game for inclusion of anything that strikes the fancy of a politician on a given day. The National Health Care bill is an ideal venue for including any item that is not related to health care since no one is going to read thru the 1000+ pages of the bill.
-
Well I hope Charlie gets his wish and the IRS tax fines section is included in the Health Care bill, it will interesting to see what Charlie does if the bill gets passed and he finds he cut his own throat.

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE IN A GLASS

There are so many additions to a planned national health care bill that it is starting to get out of hand. I believe now that congress will take all the additions and will put them in a blender, give it a good stir and pour out some in a glass. What's in the glass is what we will get and once past, for decades to come, congress will spend it's time tinkering with it, a change here, a change there, a little more of this, a little less of that, and after the decades have past the health care we started out with will long be gone. No wonder people are mad at the town hall meetings. They are scared of what we might get stuck with. People will accept change, but only if their shown what the change will be, but with congress always changing what a health care plan will look like, people will not support. The latest polls show that, 53% against national health care, 43% for it. And when you have one representative state on national TV he gives a damn about what his voters think, he is going to do what he thinks is best, that makes people really mad. Congress needs to step back from national health care, let the dust settle and then take it back up, but it needs to have input from the Dems & Reps. Then maybe they can achieve a health system that will work, that won't be rationed, that is reasonable in price and one that lowers cost without hurting the people or the health care system whatever that may end up being.

HEALTH CARE - THE NEW MONUMENT

I grew up in Washington, D.C. I grew up with the Federal Government and I've seen what the government can do. There is an old saying in Washington, "What is passed by Congress to be temporary becomes permanet. What is past as permanet becomes a monument." The last means that any bill wich finds it way into law never goes away. Like the Jefferson Memoral or the Washingto Monument, which always requires every increasing funds to maintain either, a national health care once passed into law it will also have to be maintained with every increasing funds.

--

At the moment medicare as of last year is broke, meaning it now exist on one of the largest ponzi schemes in history which makes what Maddoff did look like a drop in the bucket. The out lay for medicare now exceeds 1 trillion dollars a year, it depends on those working to pay for those retired, that's a ponzi scheme. I can't imagin what will be the cost within the next two years when the babyboomers start hitting medicare. When those working can no longer support medicare, one of two things will have to be done, raise taxes or cut back on services. What will cutting back on services gain, that I do not know. Obama says approximately half of the cost for a government run single payer national health care program can be paid by cutting of waste from medicare. Maybe it can, but then somewhere down the road medicare will still need additonal funding other than what it gets from those working.

--

One important point to consider about a government run health plan, it's start up cost, it's been indicated it will require 2 trilloion dollars in startup funding. Where will that come from? We now have a national dept of 1 trillion dollars, where will the additional 2 trillion come from and where will the 1 trillion to cover the first 10 years according Obama come from? We are talking about a lot money that no one has really stated where it will all come from and most likely we will never really know.

--

Here's the real point here. Once a law is past, that's it. It never goes away. Any required funding never goes away. And when a program needs additional funding, it will get it. Congress is very good at hiding additional funds for any program as an admendment to any spending bill. You already see how this works with the pork barrel spending - oh did you know there will be pork in the national health care bill in it's final form. The pork projects has already been debated on the different national news shows. And if additional taxes is placed on us down the road to keep a national health care going, believe me when I say we will pay it and we may not even know it when we do. You may find a minor change in the income tax laws, maybe a slight drop in a particular deduction. Taxes can buried in anything.

--

Politicians are very good schemers. It they say you are getting a tax cut, they'll tell you where, but you will never be told what other tax is being rasied to the cover the tax that is being cut. A good example of this comes out of Mississippi. Car tags were extremely high, it finally got to the point the people started complaining. The politicians in the state capitol, Jackson, got together and came up with the perfect solution, cut the taxes on car tags by half and they did and the people were really happy. Well some were disappointed a little later when they bought a new car, that's when they found out the state sales tax of 7% was no longer true when came to new cars. For new cars it was now 9%. As you can see you really don't get a tax cut, what you do get is a trade off of taxes, drop one, raise another. Keep all this in mind, once the law is passed for a national health care program, it will be with us as long as there is a USA. And it will be paid for not matter how much it will cost down the road. The politicians now in office are only concerned about holding office as long as they can, and if passing on a big mess for our grandchildren to handle, our politicians today could really care less for they know they won't be around when it all its the fan. And what makes it worse our grandkids will grow up thinking its just part of their world.

--

So to end this, lets make sure that any health care plan that is passed into law is something we really want and are willing to pay a lot for especially down the road. Nobody can predict the future. Just one last thing, has anybody been keeping track of the Cap-And-Trade aka the Envioremental Bill that congress past. It's estimated to cost each household $4,300 each year in added taxes. Take a good look at it and contact y0ur senator to express your concerns.