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.