Keep in mind these are the same people that helped bring you the economic stimulus that had to be rushed through and has achieved such success.
2010--The government sets up a Health Benefits Advisory Committee led by the surgeon general to recommend a basic benefits package.
2011--The benefits committee unveils a recommended package for adoption by the Health and Human Services Department.
Tax hikes on upper-income earners take effect.
2013--The government opens the health insurance exchange — a new purchasing pool — to individuals and businesses with fewer than 10 workers. A government-sponsored plan is among the options available through the exchange, with premiums estimated 10 percent lower than private coverage. Individuals and families making up to four times the federal poverty level get subsidies to help pay for insurance. Individuals are required to get coverage — and employers to offer it — or face financial penalties.
2014--The health insurance exchange is expanded to include companies with up to 20 employees and people who can't afford premiums under their employer's plan.
2015--The government decides whether to open the health insurance exchange — and the government-sponsored plan — to all employers.
2018--Employers who continue to provide coverage outside the exchange must offer at least the same basic benefits available through the government-regulated purchasing pool.
Thoroughly entertaining was the Drudge-Vilsack (The Pickle) battle waged yesterday over the government stimulus spending on food for shelters and soup kitchens that feed the poor, such as pictured here.
Part of the federal funds went for 760,000 pounds of ham at a price of $1.19 million, or about $1.50 a pound.
Drudge linked a grocery store (Food Lion) circular that had ham at 79 cents a pound.
Because I made the mistake, this spring, of e-mailing my State Senator (Staci Appel-Sauce for brains) against ending federal deductibility, she took that as a sign I wanted included on her e-newsletter.
That's fine, after all it's what the delete button was invented for.
It is going to be another long hard struggle for my mother as she now fights small cell lung cancer, in addition to the breast cancer re-occurrence she's been battling for the last four plus years.
Chemotherapy and radiation will be her full time job over the next four months.
Her oncologist said yesterday that it will be expensive, but that she was worth it.
I mentioned that he must not have read the Ragister's editorial about whether the costs were worth the treatment and how they appeared to be in lock step with President Obama (It Was Just A Matter Of Time).
He said he was proud that this country elected Obama, but he has a lot to learn and if he doesn't learn it quick he won't be back.
This oncologist doesn't believe the American people would accept the Ragister/Obama cost reduction scenario.
I am not as confident in people as he.
It was good to see the quick response by Ragister Reader John M. Ropes...
How does anyone know the value of life?
Does the Register know how and who analyzes and determines cost /benefit formulas that are applied to government regulations? Bureaucrats and/or government contractors carry out the wishes of the bureaucrats. A lot of objectivity is lost in the process. During my 25 years with the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C., I was involved in the regulatory process to determine cost/benefits of agency regulations. It was not an exact science.
Determining the value of a cancer patient would be just about the equivalent of flipping a coin...
This thinking will start our nation down a sordid path leading to the ultimate debasement of American values and meaning of life itself...
President Barack Obama has repeatedly stressed the need for this country to conduct more effectiveness research to find out which medical treatments get the best results for patients. In a country on track to spend $2.5 trillion on health care this year, we cannot afford to pay for unnecessary or ineffective care.
Do you really want to lead with President Obama?
Obama refused to pledge that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
It only makes sense that when treatments are proven not to work - or to prolong life only a short period of time - then our society has to make some decisions about spending huge sums of money on them.
Let's look at spending huge sums of money.
Does it make sense for folks who call 911 to be taken to the hospital for a free meal and a place to sleep?
In Camden New Jersey, $46 million has been spent on 1,035 "patients" over a five-year period.
Then there's this Iowan who's costing taxpayers $3,000 a day.
The examples I've cited may, or may not be necessary, but it is care that is mandated by law.
The Ragister quotes a study that found treating lung-cancer patients with a particular drug costing $80,000 for an 18-week supply extended life by 1.2 months - which translates into $800,000 to extend someone's life by one year.
Those decisions are far above Obama's and the Ragisters pay grade.
It doesn't surprise me that people who don't value the innocent life of an unborn baby have us now at this crossroads.
Sotomayor's votes came out liberal 59 percent of the time, compared with 52 percent for other judges who, like her, were appointed by Democratic presidents. Democratic appointees overall were 13 percent more liberal than Republican appointees.
The Washington Times found she supports allowing foreign law to impact U.S. law...