Prior planning prevents poor performance, and the GOP seems to be taking that rule to heart while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on ObamaCare.
If the law is upheld, Republicans will take to the floor to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandateand requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines.
If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place — like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say.
From the “Reasons Not To Put Government Bureaucrats In Charge Of Health Care” file comes this from — of all places — the New York Times.
A shift last year by the federal government in how it pays for drugs to treat dialysis patients may have had an unintended and potentially dire consequence, according to new research: a significant jump in blood transfusions for patients who now may not be getting enough of the medications.
I’m sure they didn’t mean to:
This month, nine major medical specialty groups published a list of 45 tests and procedures that often have no clear benefit for patients and can cause harm — CT scans for simple headaches, for example, and X-rays for routine lower back pain. You don’t often hear calls from doctors for fewer tests and procedures.
And that’s too bad. Many of them have been oversold, their benefits exaggerated and their harms ignored.
Now you tell us, Barney?
I think we paid a terrible price for health care. I would not have pushed it as hard. As a matter of fact, after Scott Brown won, I suggested going back. I would have started with financial reform but certainly not health care.
But we shouldn’t stop reading with that one quote.
The defense of ObamaCare is getting ever more desperate. Now they’re even turning to obvious logical fallacies (and even borderline falsehoods), trying to argue that the Justices might have “misunderstood” the oral arguments.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A possible misunderstanding about President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul could cloud Supreme Court deliberations on its fate, leaving the impression that the law’s insurance requirement is more onerous than it actually is.
Remember when the lefties tried claiming that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit? That fiction is now being debunked.
The 2010 law does generate both savings and revenue. But much of that money will flow into the Medicare hospitalization trust fund — and, under law, the money must be used to pay years of additional benefits to those who are already insured. That means those savings would not be available to pay for expanding coverage for the uninsured.
If Obama thought that his rhetoric against the Supreme Court was going to harm their popularity, he seems to have miscalculated badly.
Just before the highly publicized hearing on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, ratings for the U.S. Supreme Court had fallen to the lowest level ever measured by Rasmussen Reports. Now, following the hearings, approval of the court is way up.
Over the weekend Timothy Cardinal Dolan was on Face the Nation, and he spoke out on many issues, including separation of church and state, whether you should vote for or against Romney because he’s a Mormon, and of course the mandate that religious institutions and companies have to provide contraception coverage.
The video is below the fold. If you’re just interested in his comments on the mandate, it starts about 5:15 in the clip.
In a move that threatens to further inflame concerns about the rationing of medical care, the nation’s leading association of cancer physicians issued a list on Wednesday of five common tests and treatments that doctors should stop offering to cancer patients.
Of course, the reliable lefties Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor want to keep it all, but critical swing vote Kennedy seems — at least right now — to be in favor of tossing it all out, according to this report.
Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito said the real act of judicial activism would be to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress did not intend. The mandate was included primarily to bring healthy people into the insurance market, offsetting the cost of requiring insurers to cover everyone.
For those who support a completely socialized health care system, take a look at this from the United Kingdom, which has such a system:
Even the most sentimental champions of the NHS recognise its dark side. Given that its Chief Executive Sir David Nicholson has demanded a £20 billion efficiency saving if the NHS is to survive, and that demographic changes mean millions more elderly people will rely on its services (and space), the NHS can only do one thing: ration.
Once in a while, our cousins across the pond see things better than we do here, as in this article from the London (UK) Daily Mail.
Even more ironic is that the justices, or five of them at least, look like they might force President Barack Obama back to the drawing board partly on the basis of the argument one Senator Obama made against then Senator Hillary Clinton in 2008.
On the heels of yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing, the Washington Post has whipped up what they think is an unbeatable argument for the individual mandate. The problem for them is, it’s easily beatable.
In the recent past, the Supreme Court has struck down attempts by Congress to use the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to promulgate laws that had no connection to commercial activity, including those involving guns near schools and violence against women. Yet it has upheld Congress’s Commerce Clause power to reach individuals who were not obviously involved in commercial activity — most famously, the Depression-era farmer who grew wheat for his own consumption. The court concluded that his decision to grow — rather than purchase — wheat interfered with the government’s ability to regulate wheat prices.
If the questions the 3 “swing” justices asked today are any indication — and, honestly, they may not be — ObamaCare’s mandate may be in deep trouble.
Even before the administration’s top lawyer could get three minutes into his defense of the mandate, some justices accused the government of pushing for excessive authority to require Americans to buy anything.
The first question before the Supreme Court this morning was whether or not they could even rule on ObamaCare, because of an old and somewhat obscure law that might stand in the way. Heritage explains:
The 145-year-old Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) provides that courts may not hear most cases to block tax collections until the challengers first pay the tax and seek a refund. The individual mandate in Obamacare doesn’t kick in until 2014, and one court ruled that no one may challenge it until they pay the penalty for not buying insurance in 2015. The United States no longer takes that position; it thinks the AIA doesn’t apply to the mandate penalty because it is not a tax. The challengers argue there are four other reasons why the AIA doesn’t apply.
Back from a long weekend, and ready to start blogging again! And today Obama’s signature achievement, ObamaCare, goes before the Supreme Court in the first of three days of hearings. The Heritage Foundation has a great timeline of the hearings. I’ll just give their headings, so the emphasis is from the original:
Another step towards getting rid of the IPAB has been achieved:
The House on Thursday afternoon approved legislation that would repeal a government board tasked with finding Medicare savings, and institute medical tort reform across the country.
Members approved H.R. 5, the Protecting Access to Healthcare (PATH) act, by a 223-181 vote in which only seven Democrats supported the bill and ten Republican opposed.
Yes, she actually said the biggest imposition on personal liberty in the history of this nation actually “helps to guarantee” the promises of the Declaration of Independence.
Speaking on the House floor, Pelosi called on her colleagues to remember “what our founders put forth in our founding documents, which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that is exactly what the Affordable Care Act helps to guarantee.”