President Obama

[P562045]

Does anyone notice something that is missing in the my list of promises by President Obama in my last post.

It is none other than keeping the cost of this program(s) and how much money is going to be saved by these "reforms" about the same over time.

Oh how very interesting.

President Obama must be thinking republicans are going to oppose this no matter what so why even bother pretending to keep the costs of all of this contained over time.

[P562045]

My deepest apologies.

I was having trouble finding what President Obama said last night during his press conference.

I will be going into great detail about this when I can get to it but last night President Obama of course mentioned the adding to the deficit when it comes to his and congressional democrats plan to "reform" health care.

"I've also pledged that health-insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

So this would appear to me that the next president will have to deal with at least the deficit portion of this health care proposal.

This brings up a question I would love for someone to answer. What will happen in years lets just say eleven through twenty and I am mainly talking about the spending because the saving it seems to me would remain pretty constant over time.

Doesn't President Obama every once in a while go into a little Bush is evil mantra. It did not take very long at all for President Obama to blame the last eight years for this rotten economy we have just as one example.

Don't worry though there will be some excuse that President Obama has no fault when his and congressional democrats ideas takes up more and more of the budget over time. Several words can sum this up really. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. And it should be quite interesting that two out of the three deal with how the feds have handled the portion of health care they already control already.

Transcript of last night press conference here

P.S. A person may ask themselves why is it so important to try to keep the spending in this program and the savings at a reasonable balance. I just mentioned the reason why because things that might be necessary to spend money on might get pushed out of the budget because this thing becomes so huge just as the other three government programs I just mentioned have despite the best of intentions.

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by hork

while i think that affirmative action was necessary when first instituted (and may be in some cases still) i am fully aware of the negative impact it has on the flip side (as in the case peter cited).

It seems to me that the entire history of affirmative action (never understood why "affirmative" was used in the description) has been nothing less than condescending. The message it conveys is simply this: Minorities are unable to make it without the help of Liberal White Guys greasing the way for them.

[hork]

Originally Posted by spoc22

It seems to me that the entire history of affirmative action (never understood why "affirmative" was used in the description) has been nothing less than condescending. The message it conveys is simply this: Minorities are unable to make it without the help of Liberal White Guys greasing the way for them.

the term is used because when the original act was passed by the Kennedy administration it stated that government contractors must, "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

the original order applied only to said contractors. this was expanded to prohibit all employers of discriminating based on race, ethnicity, color, and sex by the Johnson administration.

note however that both of these were executive orders and not Congressional initiated and/or passed legislation.


while times have changed, i'm sure you're well aware of what the US was like in the late 50's and early 60's (and for 200 yrs before). hence, i'm certain that you would agree (whether in public or not) that such executive orders were more than justifiable during these periods and that there was in fact (i'll leave the debate for whether it persists or not today for another time) a widespread practice in many regions of the US to hire not based on qualifications alone but to give preferential treatment to white men. and in some regions said men were further segmented to include only those white men of protestant faith. but since you already know all this i'm sure i'll spare us all the history lesson.


btw, good to see you back. hope all is well with you and yours.

[P562045]

Well I am finally getting around to what President Obama said in his press conference about health care "reform" last Wednesday.

"It's about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid."

I would really like to thank President Obama for making this quite clear.

Now would President Obama like to answer the question. Who is in charge of these two programs?

It never ceases to amaze me that the very people that set up something that creates a huge problem down the line are the very same people that are going to fix the problem. Nothing new about this really I have said the same thing several times already.

President Obama would not be a very good politician if he did not give some promises and "benefits" to the congress and his own health care proposals.

1. If you have health insurance, the reform we're proposing will provide you with more security and more stability.
2. It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it.
3. It'll prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get too sick.
4. It will give you the security of knowing that if you lose your job, if you move, or if you change your job, you'll still be able to have coverage.
5. It will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket.
6. And it will cover preventive care, like check-ups and mammograms, that save lives and money.
7. Now, if you don't have health insurance, or you're a small business looking to cover your employees, you'll be able to choose a quality affordable health plan through a health insurance exchange, in a marketplace that promotes choice and competition.
8. And finally, no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a preexisting medical condition.
9. I've also pledged that health-insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it.
10. It will be paid for.
11. While they're [the congress is] currently working through proposals to finance the remaining costs, I continue to insist that health reform not be paid for on the backs of middle-class families.
12. In addition to making sure that this plan doesn't add to the deficit in the short term, the bill I sign must also slow the growth of health-care costs in the long run.
13. Our proposals would change incentives so that doctors and nurses are free to give patients the best care, just not the most expensive care.
14. We also want to create an independent group of doctors and medical experts who are empowered to eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare, on an annual basis, a proposal that could save even more money and ensure long-term financial health for Medicare.
15. Overall our proposals will improve the quality of care for our seniors and save them thousands of dollars on prescription drugs, which is why the AARP has endorsed our reform efforts.

Enough with the promises already.

President Obama is talking about how the heck we are going to be paying for this and keep the deficit from getting out of control but only until 2019. What happens after that year anyone could probably guess better than me.

So how is this going to be paid for?

"Already we've estimated that two-thirds of the cost of reform can be paid for by reallocating money that is simply being wasted in federal health-care programs. This includes over $100 billion of unwarranted subsidies that go to insurance companies as part of Medicare -- subsidies that do nothing to improve care for our seniors."

Nothing like a little dig towards health insurance companies by President Obama. But the much more important part of how we are going to pay for this is the second part. President Obama even admits there are problems in a program called Medicare that is can be used to help pay for this new program to provide health insurance for everyone or almost everyone. Once again I am trying to remember who exactly is in charge of running the Medicare program in the first place. How is President Obama going to give one of his guarantees when he says he really means it that problems within the new federal health care program will not happen. I just ask because in the beginning of this post President Obama comes right and says part of the reason why the cost of health care is so expensive as it is.

"I have great health insurance, and so does every member of Congress. This debate is about the letters I read when I sit in the Oval Office every day, and the stories I hear at town hall meetings."

That should be very comforting to all of us. President Obama and the congress as well have "great" health insurance and this really about getting everyone this great health insurance as well. Would someone like to tell me how much this "great" insurance is costing us and then start multiplying that times the tens of millions of that have no health insurance or not inadequate health insurance.

Then President Obama gives some sob stories as examples of why this so called "reform" is necessary in the first place.

"This is about the woman in Colorado who paid $700 a month to her insurance company, only to find out that they wouldn't pay a dime for her cancer treatment; who had to use up her retirement funds to save her own life.

This is about the middle-class college graduate from Maryland whose health insurance expired when he changed jobs, and woke up from the emergency surgery that he required with $10,000 worth of debt."

Another mantra of mine crops up yet again.

"This is about every family, every business and every taxpayer who continues to shoulder the burden of a problem that Washington has failed to solve for decades."

So why in the heck has this not been fixed in decades. Need I remind people in the last sixteen years we have had a democrat president and democrat and republican congress. Also in that time period we have had a republican president with a republican and democrat congress as well.

Maybe finally with a democrat president and congress this so necessary "reform" will finally be passed and we will all be better off for it. President Obama has a great list of the "benefits" that will come from this "reform". And President Obama even has a few examples of how we are going to be paying for this but only until 2019.

As a person reads what is supposed to happen it really sounds like something we should really be doing as a country. So why it taking congress so long to pass these necessary "reforms"?

Well as the old saying goes "the devil is in the details."

Now as President Obama answers some questions I sure do hope he addresses what we should really be concerned about down the road.

"We also know that with health-care inflation on the curve that it's on, we are guaranteed to see Medicare and Medicaid basically break the federal budget."

So how is this new federal program is going to be different than the two government run health care systems that were just mentioned. I just ask because President Obama is admitting that if we continue on the path we are now the federal budget is going to be broken. What another great reason for this "reform". NOT!

Mr. fancy sentences but this is very important as well. I am not putting the whole sentence here though.

"...creating the kinds of systems where prevention and wellness and information technologies make the system more efficient...."

So how is this going to work and more importantly what does it even mean in the first place.

So we move along to how this is going to be paid for. two thirds is going to be coming from the health care system that goes to waste. But where is the other one third coming from P? The rich. Simple enough. I am sure rich people will be more than willing to pay for people for countless reasons why they do not have health care now to have health care that is run by the feds. Just ignore what President Obama has said is part of the problem in the first place which is Medicare and Medicaid for convenience sake.

"It's about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid."

"We also know that with health-care inflation on the curve that it's on, we are guaranteed to see Medicare and Medicaid basically break the federal budget."

This is just amazing. Part of the reason we need to "reform" health care and even President Obama admits this is because two programs that are run by the feds. So what is the solution to our problem according to Washington. Another program run by the feds.

I really don't know if I should laugh or cry by this revelation.

Some more reasons this "reform" is so necessary in the first place.

"If somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your health-care costs over the next 10 years, that's guaranteed to result in more Americans losing their health care, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit, I think most people would be opposed to that."

But I seem to remember that President Obama mentioned that this has not been "fixed" in decades.

"And that's why I think this is so important -- not only for those families out there who are struggling and who need some protection from abuses in the insurance industry or need some protection from skyrocketing costs, but it's also important for our economy."

Just another great reason for these "reforms" our economy.

"One of the things that doesn't get talked about is the fact that when premiums are going up, and the costs to employers are going up, that's money that could be going into people's wages and incomes. And over the last decade, we basically saw middle-class families; their incomes and wages flatlined."

But of course taxing the rich to pay for one third of this program will not take money out of their pockets. Not exactly sure how that will work but if President Obama says something it must be true no matter what. NOT!

We've got to change how health care is delivered to -- the health-care delivery system works, so that doctors are being paid for the quality of care and not the quantity of care.

"We've got to make information technology more effective. We've got to have the medical system work in teams, so that people don't go through five different tests. Those are all critical to do. And we can do them."

Again I must ask how this is going to work. I am going to assume electronic medical records are at least a part of this. But getting this all to work is going to be costly as well. Because if this is truly going to work every doctor and hospital will have to adopt medical records. Just as an example. A person has a condition that needs a medical specialist. The doctor wants to run a medical test but the specialist wants to run the same test as well. So electronic medical records is the way that the specialist is supposed to know the other doctor has ordered the medical test already. This is about reducing costs as well. I have no clue how often the same person gets the same test multiple times but it does happen. Just as an example of how much this will cost just the medical records part and I just explained how it is supposed to reduce costs. How many doctors and hospitals let just use a not normal situation are there in New York City. This may also be the reason why everyone needs broadband as well. So let's just say a person lives where they have to go somewhere else to get the medical care that they need for countless reasons. So the place that only has a few hundred people in it will have to be able to communicate with a much larger place. This has got to be expensive as well. As I mentioned a little earlier doctors are going to be connected to hospital but with my latest example hospitals will also need to be connected to other hospitals as well. And in certain cases we are talking about all of these various things being connected could be miles away from each other.

Another reason this "reform" is so necessary.

"But my hope is, and I'm confident that, when people look at the cost of doing nothing, they're going to say, you know, we can make this happen. We've -- we've made big changes before that end up resulting in a better life for the American people."

Translation into plain English.

Something needs to be done no matter what the consequences down the road are because the health care system is so broken now and needs to be fixed by the very people that have sat by and not fixed anything for decades right Mr. president?

So a person may ask themselves why do we need to do this sometime this year.

"Number one, I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health-care costs. And they ask me: Can you help?

So I've got a middle-aged couple that will write me, and they say: Our daughter just found she's got leukemia, and if I don't do something soon, we just either are going to go bankrupt or we're not going to be able to provide our daughter with the care that she needs.

And in a country like ours, that's not right. So that's part of my rush.

The second thing is the fact that if you don't set deadlines in this town, things don't happen. The default position is inertia, because doing something always creates some people who are unhappy. There's always going to be some interest out there that decides: You know what? The status quo is working for me a little bit better.

So I guess the president and the congress should be the only people that should decide how this is all going to work because as it stands now things are "just not right". Well I need to ask another question. What percentage of people like their health insurance as of now. It will be the reverse of that number if this ever becomes law. Let's just say as an example. Seventy five percent of people like their health insurance now. When the feds decide how all of this works the people that like their health insurance will be down to twenty five percent. And guess who will promise these people that don't like their health insurance for a countless reasons that they will fix it. It will be the very people that helped set up the program in the first place. This is all going to take some time though. I do find it rather fascinating that most people will not feel the effects of this for at least three years. Now wait that is not entirely true. The rich people will be paying for a portion of this system just because they are rich and they have some money laying around not being used for the right things such as this new government program.

President Obama hits another one of my mantras.

"So folks are skeptical, and that is entirely legitimate, because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington lately that help them."

So I must ask why this is going to be so different than other things that have not helped people in the past. Don't think for a second that members of congress are going to be doing this out of the goodness of their hearts and not get something out of it as well. Such as the cynic that is so part of me getting people to vote for the people that set up this wonderful sounding program in the first place. And please to not misunderstand me. I think this is one of the worst pieces of legislation in decades, along with crap and tax, and illegal immigration "reform". And all three of these pieces of legislation have come out of a congress that have been run by what political party. I could care less what political party it is really. If this came from a republican congress I would have the exact same kind of reaction. Terrible ideas are terrible ideas no matter who proposes them. With regards to illegal immigration reform that was when I started to say some not so glowing things about Bush the evil. I guess I not so gullible to just take things that the congress and President Obama say at face value. And I will admit this health care "reform" does sound appealing but that does not mean it is a good idea as well. Part of the reason even President Obama comments on about why people are cynical in the first place and that is the pieces of legislation are not really helping even though the people have the best of intentions. I would like to wrap of this section of my comments with asking a person for an example of piece of legislation that Washington has come up let just say in the last decade that is a very good idea. I can only think of one at the moment. And that was making the penalties much stiffer for identity theft; and also adding to the various ways that could happen in the first place.

"And the fact that we have made so much progress, where we've got doctors, nurses, hospitals, even the pharmaceutical industry, AARP saying that this makes sense to do, I think means that the stars are aligned and we need to take advantage of that."

Well the reason this is the case can be summed up in two words. General Motors.

Now this is where a person must read this very closely and think about what is being said here by President Obama.

"PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want to cover everybody. Now, the truth is that unless you have a -- what's called a single-payer system, in which everybody's automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual, because there's always going to be somebody out there who thinks they're indestructible and doesn't want to get health care, doesn't bother getting health care, and then, unfortunately, when they get hit by a bus, end up in the emergency room and the rest of us have to pay for it.

So the plan that has been -- that I've put forward and that -- what we're seeing in Congress would cover, the estimates are, at least 97 to 98 percent of Americans. There might still be people left out there who, even though there's an individual mandate, even though they are required to purchase health insurance, might still not get it, or despite a lot of subsidies, are still in such dire straits that it's still hard for them to afford it. And we may end up giving them some sort of hardship exemption. But -- I'm sorry, go ahead."

Now I am going to take the three most important parts out of this for people to ponder.

"...in which everybody's automatically covered...even though there's an individual mandate, even though they are required to purchase health insurance...."

And President Obama did not mention this when he commented about why there is a hold up in congress in the first place.

Now why is this important in the first place. My interpretation of this is that everybody eventually will be in this program and they will have to be in this program no matter if they want to be or not.

But don't worry there are choices that are so conveniently not even a part of the this whole discussion. I wonder why that would be. I am going out on a very thin limb and assume that some people may not like the choices that they are going to get. Remember part of the reason this is so necessary in the first place is because health care is so expensive. And how is something such as health care going to be less expensive. Something is going to be taken out. And no in this instance I am not just talking about the part of the health care system that could be used to pay about two thirds of this program. Just going with what the president said. A person can decide if the president is right or not on their own.

[P562045]

Continued in part two from the last post where I mostly talk about health care "reform" only. That should show a person how complex what we are talking about really is. I could not even get all I wanted to talk about all in one post!

President Obama continues talking about health care "reform".

"If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price
for the thing that's going to make you well?

But the system right now doesn't incentivize that. Those are the changes that are going to be needed, that we're going to need to make
inside the system.

It will require, I think, patients to -- as well as doctors, as well as hospitals -- to be more discriminating consumers. But I think that's
a good thing, because ultimately we can't afford this.

We just can't afford what we're doing right now. And just to raise a broader issue that I think has colored how we look at health- care
reform, let me just talk about deficit and debt, because part of what's been happening in this debate is, the American people are
understandably queasy about the huge deficits and debt that we're facing right now."

Well this is rather interesting. We can't afford health care as it stand now so we need to try something different. I must say very different
. And it would take way longer than an hour to explain this including the not so pleasant parts of this. And every fiber of my being knows
that at least a part of this is not going to be pleasant. Just as an example that is really unpleasant. What would be a way to cut the costs in this new system. If people die then we would not have to pay for their health care anymore. I know this is a little strange for me to say but it would reduce the costs.

"First of all, let's understand that when I came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, that we had already inherited. We had to
immediately more forward with a stimulus package because the American economy had lost trillions of dollars of wealth. Consumers had lost,
through their 401(k)s, through their home values, you name it, they had lost trillions of dollars. That all just went away."

And where the heck was the congress and Bush the evil while huge deficits and trillions of dollars are lost took place. I had to ask because
these health care "reforms" are coming from congress right? Well the much more important questions actually was where were the people when
this happened.

"So the -- the reason I point this out is to say that the debt and the deficit are deep concerns of mine. I am very worried about federal
in order for us to do more, we're not only going to have to eliminate waste in the system -- and by the way, we had a big victory yesterday
by eliminating a weapons program, the F-22, that the Pentagon had repeatedly said we didn't need. So we're going to have to eliminate waste
there. We're going to have to eliminate no-bid contracts. We're going to have to do all kinds of reforms in our budgeting. But we're also
going to have to change health care. Otherwise, we can't close that $7.1 trillion gap in the way that the American people want it to change.

So to all -- everybody who's out there who has been ginned-up about this idea that the Obama administration wants to spend and spend and
spend, the fact of the matter is, is that we inherited a(n) enormous deficit, enormous long-term debt projections. We have not reduced it
as much as we need to, and as I'd like to, but health-care reform is not going to add to that deficit; it's designed to lower it."

These are several other reasons why these "reforms" are so necessary as well.

"That's part of the reason why it's so important to do, and to do now."

Those this should be done now when we don't have the complete picture. I already mentioned the not so pleasant parts and the president so far
in this press conference has pretty much just mentioned why this is so necessary now and what the "benefits" should be as well.

In fact there are several questions that ask the president about the not so pleasant things about this and the president talks about
something else. This is a very good example of this.

"Q And a subsidiary question: What do you think about taking it out of the political realm and giving it to an outside body of experts, to
take the politics out of Medicare?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, on the second point, that's exactly what our proposal is. It -- called the MedPAC program. By the way, it was original
ly a Republican idea. I want to give credit where credit is due. The Republican Congress passed an -- a bill that created a panel of
health-care experts to make recommendations to Congress on how we could get better quality, lower cost. The problem is, every year it would
just go on a shelf and nobody would act on it.

So what we've said is, let's give that body some power. Let's require Congress to vote on the proposals that they're making every year.
Congress can still reject them, so it's not completely removing it from politics. But they have to reject or accept it as a package. And
that, I think, would incentivize and empower important changes.

But here's the thing I want to emphasize, Chip. It's not going to reduce Medicare benefits. What it's going to do is to change how those
benefits are delivered so that they're more efficient. Let me give you a very specific example.

You've heard that as a consequence of our efforts at reform, the pharmaceutical industry has already said they're willing to put $80 billion
on the table.

Now, why is that? Well, the reason is, because there's probably even more waste than $80 billion, in terms of how the drug plan in Medicare
is administered. We might be able to get 100 billion out or more.

But the pharmaceutical industry voluntarily said, here's $80 billion. You know what that -- what that means. That means that senior citizens
who right now have a so-called donut hole in their -- in their plan, where after spending a certain amount on prescription drugs, suddenly
they drop off a cliff and they've got to pocket the entire cost; suddenly half of that is filled.

That's a hard commitment that we already have. So that's a change in how we are delivering Medicare. But you know what; it turns out that it
means out-of-pocket savings for seniors. That's why AARP has endorsed us."

And another things. Is AARP really looking out for people's interests or their own interests. Yes AARP does some good things of course but
as my example with the congress. They are not doing it out of the kindness of their own hearts AARP is trying to make money as well.

As people can see again when talking about health care it has many aspects of it including the not so pleasant parts of this proposed
legislation that people do not want to talk about. Which is understandable but people better know as much as humanly possible about this
because once this becomes law it will be very difficult if not impossible to change it and even then that could even add more problems and
supposedly "fixing" some problems as well.

Well I will leave a person with one last thing to think about long and hard. What is a really good idea that has come out of the congress in
the last ten years? And no you can not use my example that I gave earlier in this post.

I am going to give people several ways to read or even watch this press conference because I hope a person gets a sense on what we are
talking about when it comes to health care "reform". This is not something that should be doing something to be doing something. I think
there are even important parts of this such as getting the waste out of Medicare and Medicaid for example. I for one like to read but that
is just me.

New York Times transcript

Video here

And yes this is the one where President Obama called the police officer in Massachusetts was acting stupid even though President Obama was not there and did not know all of the facts from the case.

[P562045]

Well there are two very important parts of this whole discussion about health care "reform" to me the first part concerns what kind of choices will a person have when they are in program.

And to me that is part that we are discussing the least for reasons that to be quite frank about it I don't really even know the reasons why they are not being discussed in more detail.

Then of course another very important part of this health care "reform" is how much is it going to cost us. There have been some figures at least when it comes to the short term in the next decade but I would like to know what happens to the costs after that.

[P562045]

Well there was a question to President Obama about people and what kind of choices they may or may not have to give up if this "reform" ever becomes law.

So is President Obama answering the question asked or not. And if the answer is no why is that.

"Chip Reid.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

On Medicare: There are obviously millions of Americans of Americans who depend on Medicare. And when you talk about bending the long-term costs downward, or when you talk about cuts in the current proposal on Capitol Hill, you talk about cuts in Medicare and they talk about cuts in Medicare, but there are never many specifics.

Specifically, what kind of pain, what kind of sacrifice are you calling on beneficiaries to make? And even if not right away, aren't future beneficiaries going to be getting less generous benefits than today's?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No. No.

Q And a subsidiary question: What do you think about taking it out of the political realm and giving it to an outside body of experts, to take the politics out of Medicare?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, on the second point, that's exactly what our proposal is. It -- called the MedPAC program. By the way, it was originally a Republican idea. I want to give credit where credit is due. The Republican Congress passed an -- a bill that created a panel of health-care experts to make recommendations to Congress on how we could get better quality, lower cost. The problem is, every year it would just go on a shelf and nobody would act on it.

So what we've said is, let's give that body some power. Let's require Congress to vote on the proposals that they're making every year. Congress can still reject them, so it's not completely removing it from politics. But they have to reject or accept it as a package. And that, I think, would incentivize and empower important changes.

But here's the thing I want to emphasize, Chip. It's not going to reduce Medicare benefits. What it's going to do is to change how those benefits are delivered so that they're more efficient. Let me give you a very specific example.

You've heard that as a consequence of our efforts at reform, the pharmaceutical industry has already said they're willing to put $80 billion on the table.

Now, why is that? Well, the reason is, because there's probably even more waste than $80 billion, in terms of how the drug plan in Medicare is administered. We might be able to get 100 billion out or more.

But the pharmaceutical industry voluntarily said, here's $80 billion. You know what that -- what that means. That means that senior citizens who right now have a so-called donut hole in their -- in their plan, where after spending a certain amount on prescription drugs, suddenly they drop off a cliff and they've got to pocket the entire cost; suddenly half of that is filled.

That's a hard commitment that we already have. So that's a change in how we are delivering Medicare. But you know what; it turns out that it means out-of-pocket savings for seniors. That's why AARP has endorsed us."


So does the president answer the question about pain and sacrifice an individual may have and that individual may also have to give up some choices they have now.

So the president discusses someone else beside the congress must make the tough decisions on how to lower some costs. President Obama so promises that Medicare benefits are not going to be reduced at all. President Obama also discusses that pharmaceutical companies are so willing to give tens of billions of dollars toward these "reforms" like the have much choice in the matter. President Obama also discusses why this money is important. But notice the president did not say it fills the whole "donut" that exists in almost all kinds of medical plans. President Obama throws in at the very end of his answer that even AARP endorses this plan.

But the trillions of dollars question is that is because these "reforms" will be with us long after ten years why did the president not answer the question in a very direct manner when it comes to what people may or may not be "sacrificing" or giving up because of these so called "reforms".

And we better start figuring out the reason why President Obama so avoided this type of question in the first place.

Transcript of press conference

[P562045]

Getting back to my discussion about choices and cost.

Let's just say a person wants to buy a car. There are all kinds of choices that a person could choose when it comes to this. And each one of these things that a person chooses to have make the cost of the vehicle go up.

Now I know this example is a little out there but it is a good example. To keep the cost of the car lower a person must not choose any of the extras.

So there are a lot of choices in the medical field as well. Even the costs of prescriptions for the exact same thing can be different. This also is about various medical tests a person could have as well. President Obama even discussed this in his press conference and he said these extra tests that people really don't need drive up the cost of health care.

Another thing about this who is going to be making the decisions about what prescriptions and medical tests are not necessary based on cost effectiveness or there may be another word for it. That basically means that a panel of experts and we have no idea who is going to choose these experts are going to be recommending various aspects of health care and if they are a good idea or not mostly from a cost perspective.

Well darn if I haven't talked about these "reform" proposals even already I guess finding out what the MedPac program even is. And I could really care less which political party idea it is it seems to me that both of them have some pretty terrible ideas all the time when it really comes right down to it.

[P562045]

What has gotten into a very famous news organization.

They highlight five key freedoms a patient might lose if this "reform" ever becomes law.

1. One must pick a plan no matter if one of the plan fits that person best or not. I must go back to keeping costs within reason. The best way to do that is to limit the choices a person gets.
2. People must pay the same rate no matter if they are relatively healthy, have cancer, a teenager, a member of AARP etc. In other words a healthy person gets to pay the same rate as an unhealthy person. Makes perfect sense to me. NOT!
3. Competition will all but be eliminated from health insurance eventually over a long period of time. And take a wild guess who gets to decide what rate a person should be paying in the first place.
4. Only people that work at a large company such as General Electric won't see their plans change at least some. This is because the theory goes if more people pay something then that helps with the risks. Never really understood this and probably never will.
5. Don't worry you will get used to a new doctor. And guess whom gets to say which doctors are on the list in the first place.

And don't forget these are only the key things people may lose if this ever becomes law.

I would like to add another one of my own. If and that is a big if doctors are paid a salary and not for how many people they see in a given day which leads to higher health care costs now. The number of patients a doctor sees can lead to extra tests that are not needed and even in some cases unnecessary medical procedures. What I have just described is what happens mostly in the current health care system. What kind of incentive are some doctors going to have if they get paid exactly the same if they see 300 patients for about ten months out of the year or 3,000 patients a year. I only mention this because this could lead to long lines in some cases if a doctor decided to only see one patient per day. And plus will this salary be enough for every doctor wants to stay a doctor. Who knows because we have no idea what the salary would be.

I would like to thank CNN for this very informative information.

Now I must remind people that what said one day may not be true the next day. This situation has to be changing at least some from when it was first drafted. In fact there are at least two plans in each of the bodies of congress.

Story from CNN about some health care freedoms that might be lost

[P562045]

Happy birthday President Obama.

Now we have that out of the way.

Well recently I have been talking about very important domestic policy issues such as cap and trade and health care "reform".

This story about Afghanistan really caught my eye for several reasons.

Now if the United Nations says that collateral damage in Afghanistan is up twenty four percent, when compared to the same period last year, that must be the case.

If this was under the watch of Bush the evil this would be the lead story for several days in a row.

Has a person heard much about this.

Of course the media could go into a long lecture about how dangerous Afghanistan is. I seem to remember that then candidate Obama so promised changed.

Well it must also be pointed out that this has been one of the least deadly months in Iraq since March of 2003.

A person may be asking the question why is the violence in Afghanistan up. Well part of the reason is that we have been quietly putting more troops in that country and that does not sit well with the Taliban who have little regard for human life. What a reminder of who we are still dealing with almost eight years latter.

Another factor when it comes to Afghanistan may be that they are holding elections in a few weeks.

I have a problem for this one size fits all foreign policy we seem to have with this particular matter.

Part of the reason we have been getting very little news from Iraq is the old if it is going bad there it is news and if not we quietly move along and almost get no news out of Iraq recently.

So the question must be asked why has it been so quiet in Iraq recently in the first place. Well we had a "surge" in Iraq and that seemed to really calm it down.

So let us just try a surge in Afghanistan as well because it worked so well in Iraq. This is so foolish I barely even want to comment except to say that Iraq and Afghanistan are two very different places as is no two countries are exactly alike.

It was a year ago this week that I talked about we are going to ignoring some very important things when it comes to President Obama. I even mentioned at the time we will be focusing on domestic issues and our relationships with other countries will almost be completely ignored. This story about Afghanistan just proves this to me. I seem to remember just last year that trip by then candidate Obama to the Middle East and Western Europe with one of the memorable things being in Berlin Germany. I mocked Obama at that time that visiting these various countries does not really mean all of sudden he has foreign policy experience.

So in conclusion President Obama has decided what is good for Iraq is also good for Afghanistan as well. This has led to an increase in violence in Afghanistan though.

Speaking of foreign policy. Does anyone who what continent Secretary Clinton will be visiting this week?

I must say that foreign policy is just as important as our domestic policy by the mere fact that we are so connected to rest of the world through the use of technology that we better start getting our foreign policy act together or unknown problems will keep happening such as what is going on in Afghanistan now.

So besides getting the bad pirates off the coast of Somalia what has been another one our foreign policy successes since January 20th of this year. I just ask because as I said our foreign policy is just as important as our domestic policy.

Story about Afghanistan here

[P562045]

Let's discuss President Obama's birthday cake shall we like they did in the news in the District of Columbia.

I think the birthday cake is o.k. but not exactly very cool like this president so is. They should have gone with Spider Man maybe because that is one of the president's favorites.

I wonder what the real news we should be really concerned about really is.

So sorry a person will have to click on the link to see a picture of this cake that is describe in the story as hideous because the cake is not at all like President Obama who we are all supposed to believe is super cool and this cake is not that at all.

Yes there really is a news story discussing President Obama's birthday cake.

One last question why does President Obama need over thirty handlers in the first place just for a birthday party?

[P562045]

I just hate the words czars so I am going to call him President Obama's pay advisor.

So what exactly is this pay advisor supposed to be figuring out this week.

What some executives at companies that have received money from the feds need to be paid.

Yes a person read that right. A member of the executive branch, whom by the way was never approved by the congress, will have the ultimate say on what kind of pay that executives at a company that has received money from the feds should receive. This is an excellent idea by President Obama getting someone else to do the dirty work for him.

Now don't worry I am sure President Obama will promise that if you make enough money he will not be determining how much pay you should receive as well.

Maybe the pay advisor should next go after college sports coaches pay if the university receives any money from the feds at all. I think there are several college football coaches making over four million dollars a year and that seems like a lot of money to me and the pay advisor should look into this as well.

My example is a little out there but where does this really end. I mean how many companies out their today get at least some money from the feds.

Just as another example. General Motors.

There are several things a person must really think about when it comes to these advisors.

Are they making decisions on their own. How are they going to be stopped if they screw up. Just fire them and hire another advisor. And the most important thing to think about is where exactly is the law that says that the president should have these kind of people in the first place. And no it would not make me feel any better if there was a law in place. Because this particular congress would just look the other way when someone from a particular political party screwed up. Plus the legislative branch would not want to upset the executive branch because the president alone can sign pieces of legislation that become law.

This article even names several executives by name who are the bad people.

And if one person in the executive branch I would say who I really think that is and no I do not think it is the advisor can say how much an executive for a company that receives any federal funds would that attract the best executive for the company or not. We don't really know. But we have already had the situation this year that President Obama decided to fire the head of General Motors and replace them with someone else.

I must ask again where President Obama thinks these powers come from that he is using. I very much doubt that it is the constitution somewhere but President Obama should be well aware of this because he used to teach constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School.

I really want a person to think about this article long and hard when they read about what one person in the executive branch is doing when it come to what a person should receive in pay.

Story here

[P562045]

There are some very good reasons to kill older people so says Newsweek.

Talk about shock journalism. Howard Stern would be so proud. But with a headline "The Case for Killing Granny." Nothing really surprises me anymore.

Now to the reasons why we should be killing older people in the first place.

1. "But the need to spend less money on the elderly at the end of life is the elephant in the room in the health-reform debate."
2. "Compared with other Western countries, the United States has more health care—but, generally speaking, not better health care."
3. "A significant portion of the savings will have to come from the money we spend on seniors at the end of life because, as Willie Sutton explained about why he robbed banks, that's where the money is."
4. "As President Obama said, most of the uncontrolled growth in federal spending and the deficit comes from Medicare; nothing else comes close."

This reason is simply amazing. Is the objective of health care "reform" to have more people in a government run system like Medicare or not? I must ask the question because if the answer is no then why are people in Washington trying to "reform" health care in the first place. Even President Obama made the comment that Medicare which last time I checked is run by the feds and the cost of this particular program is one of the many reasons we so need "reform" and is so necessary in the first place when it comes to health care.

I am having a Michael Jordan moment here and I am going to be very blunt and honest about this so called "reform" in the first place. This is not even really health care. This is about getting another victory for President Obama plain and simple.

5. President Obama needs another victory and "reforming" health care would be a very good one for him to have especially when it comes to November 2012.
6. "Almost a third of the money spent by Medicare—about $66.8 billion a year—goes to chronically ill patients in the last two years of life."
7. "Medicare spends twice as much on similar patients in some parts of the country as in others."

Last time I checked a person can not buy health insurance from another state. Don't ask me the reason why. People in much more rural areas get screwed because there are not nearly as many people to spread the cost health care over. So let's just say a person from a small town can't afford to have a medical procedure done for an infinite amount of reasons someone has to pay the doctor and the hospital eventually. So in a rural setting that would mean that the health care costs could be larger than in an urban type setting but that is not always the case. I can't think of a reason why that would be the case right now but I have little doubt it does happen that a person living in a rural area would have to pay less than a person living in an urban area.

8. "But there are also significant disparities [when it comes to cost of health care] in towns that are otherwise very similar."
9. "The answer, the Dartmouth researchers found, is that in some places doctors are just more likely to order more tests and procedures. More specialists are involved. There is very little reason for them not to order more tests and treatments."
10. "And since Medicare pays by procedure, test, and hospital stay—though less and less each year as the cost squeeze tightens—there is an incentive to do more and more. To make a good living, doctors must see more patients, and order more tests."

And there is a solution for this problem a little latter on in the article but as I have mentioned before if we start just giving a doctor money based on a fixed salary and not by how many tests or procedures they do. I would dare say at least some doctors would see a lot fewer patients in a given day because the incentive to see as many patients as possible is gone if a doctor receives a salary no matter what they do in a given day. This is very tricky. I know if I was a doctor I would just take the money and the easy way out especially if I was guaranteed a given a fixed salary each year if I did a minimal amount of requirements each year but that is just me. And I have no clue if there are even any requirements involved for the doctor to receive the fixed salary in the first place.

11. "All this treatment does not necessarily buy better care. In fact, the Dartmouth studies have found worse outcomes in many states and cities where there is more health care. Why? Because just going into the hospital has risks—of infection, or error, or other unforeseen complications."
12. "The real problem is unnecessary and unwanted care."
13. "But how do you decide which treatments to cut out? How do you choose between the necessary and the unnecessary? There has been talk among experts and lawmakers of giving more power to a panel of government experts to decide—Britain has one, called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (known by the somewhat ironic acronym NICE).
14. "But no one wants the horror stories of denied care and long waits that are said to plague state-run national health-care systems. (The criticism is unfair: patients wait longer to see primary-care physicians in the United States than in Britain.)"

How very interesting. There are actually incidents when it comes to "state run- national health care systems". I am quite surprised by this well actually I am not. There was a memorable story I was watching some testimony at the congress and the story that stood out to me was that a couple had to deliver their own baby and I can't remember what country that story came from but I am certain it was a country where the national government was running the health care system. Now does a person have to wait longer to see a primary care physician for a physical or check up. As we all should know prevention could lower health care costs down the road but it also could not as well. I would think most of the longer wait times would be a emergency room type situation. Then there was my example quite a while ago when someone complained that some people it would take longer to see them in an emergency room situation. My example was which should be looked at first a broken arm or a person with a sniffles. And this has absolutely nothing to do with a person economic situation.

15. "There's no question that reining in the lawyers would help cut costs. Fearing medical-malpractice suits, doctors engage in defensive medicine, ordering procedures that may not be strictly necessary—but why take the risk? According to various studies, defensive medicine adds perhaps 2 percent to the overall bill—a not-insignificant number when more than $2 trillion is at stake. A number of states have managed to institute some kind of so-called tort reform, limiting the size of damage awards by juries in medical-malpractice cases."
16. "But the biggest cost booster is the way doctors are paid under most insurance systems, including Medicare. It's called fee-for-service, and it means just that. So why not just put doctors on salary?...HMOs that paid doctors a flat fee in the 1990s faced a backlash as patients bridled at long waits and denied service."

And why would this be if a doctor is given a fixed salary would there be some long waits and even denied service as well.

17. "Ever-rising health-care spending now consumes about 17 percent of the economy (versus about 10 percent in Europe). At the current rate of increase, it will devour a fifth of GDP by 2018. We cannot afford to sustain a productive economy with so much money going to health care."
18. I am going to have to explain another reason we actually may want to kill granny. Well Massachusetts has some people watch over their 2,600 sickest Medicare patients. The reason for this is to cut costs of course. Another person gets to decide if the person should see a doctor or not. And this cut costs by 5% out of the Mass General program. And this savings is huge because I seem to remember that about 97% of residents in Massachusetts have some form of health insurance. I wonder if this could be done on a much larger scale though. Everyone that is not sick should visit a person each day that is sick and see if they really need to go to the doctor or not. What a stupid idea P. Plus there would have to be some kind of incentive for a healthy person to go see the sick person in the first place. That would make costs rise at least some even though the person may go and see a doctor less.
19. "Other initiatives ensure that the elderly get counseling about end-of-life issues. Although demagogued as a "death panel," a program in Wisconsin to get patients to talk to their doctors about how they want to deal with death was actually a resounding success. A study by the Archives of Internal Medicine shows that such conversations between doctors and patients can decrease costs by about 35 percent—while improving the quality of life at the end."

It is quite amazing that there are nineteen different reasons why health care so desperately needs to be "reformed".

But in the end as I said earlier the most important reason for health care "reform" at least when it come to President Obama's perspective is he so desperately needs another victory for the express purpose of November 2012.

"The Case for Killing Granny"

[P562045]

I want to put the nineteen reasons why health care "reform" is supposed to be necessary right together.

One thing about the list. Number five about President Obama needing another victory is my own reason. I can think of only a few people in the media that would think that way. Mostly on radio now wait one of them does have a radio program in the afternoon and a television program as well.

Well here we go.

"The Case for Killing Granny"

1. "But the need to spend less money on the elderly at the end of life is the elephant in the room in the health-reform debate."
2. "Compared with other Western countries, the United States has more health care—but, generally speaking, not better health care."
3. "A significant portion of the savings will have to come from the money we spend on seniors at the end of life because, as Willie Sutton explained about why he robbed banks, that's where the money is."
4. "As President Obama said, most of the uncontrolled growth in federal spending and the deficit comes from Medicare; nothing else comes close."
5. President Obama needs another victory and "reforming" health care would be a very good one for him to have especially when it comes to November 2012.
6. "Almost a third of the money spent by Medicare—about $66.8 billion a year—goes to chronically ill patients in the last two years of life."
7. "Medicare spends twice as much on similar patients in some parts of the country as in others."
8. "But there are also significant disparities [when it comes to cost of health care] in towns that are otherwise very similar."
9. "The answer, the Dartmouth researchers found, is that in some places doctors are just more likely to order more tests and procedures. More specialists are involved. There is very little reason for them not to order more tests and treatments."
10. "And since Medicare pays by procedure, test, and hospital stay—though less and less each year as the cost squeeze tightens—there is an incentive to do more and more. To make a good living, doctors must see more patients, and order more tests."
11. "All this treatment does not necessarily buy better care. In fact, the Dartmouth studies have found worse outcomes in many states and cities where there is more health care. Why? Because just going into the hospital has risks—of infection, or error, or other unforeseen complications."
12. "The real problem is unnecessary and unwanted care."
13. "But how do you decide which treatments to cut out? How do you choose between the necessary and the unnecessary? There has been talk among experts and lawmakers of giving more power to a panel of government experts to decide—Britain has one, called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (known by the somewhat ironic acronym NICE).
14. "But no one wants the horror stories of denied care and long waits that are said to plague state-run national health-care systems. (The criticism is unfair: patients wait longer to see primary-care physicians in the United States than in Britain.)"
15. "There's no question that reining in the lawyers would help cut costs. Fearing medical-malpractice suits, doctors engage in defensive medicine, ordering procedures that may not be strictly necessary—but why take the risk? According to various studies, defensive medicine adds perhaps 2 percent to the overall bill—a not-insignificant number when more than $2 trillion is at stake. A number of states have managed to institute some kind of so-called tort reform, limiting the size of damage awards by juries in medical-malpractice cases."
16. "But the biggest cost booster is the way doctors are paid under most insurance systems, including Medicare. It's called fee-for-service, and it means just that. So why not just put doctors on salary?...HMOs that paid doctors a flat fee in the 1990s faced a backlash as patients bridled at long waits and denied service."
17. "Ever-rising health-care spending now consumes about 17 percent of the economy (versus about 10 percent in Europe). At the current rate of increase, it will devour a fifth of GDP by 2018. We cannot afford to sustain a productive economy with so much money going to health care."
18. I am going to have to explain another reason we actually may want to kill granny. Well Massachusetts has some people watch over their 2,600 sickest Medicare patients. The reason for this is to cut costs of course. Another person gets to decide if the person should see a doctor or not. And this cut costs by 5% out of the Mass General program. And this savings is huge because I seem to remember that about 97% of residents in Massachusetts have some form of health insurance. I wonder if this could be done on a much larger scale though. Everyone that is not sick should visit a person each day that is sick and see if they really need to go to the doctor or not. What a stupid idea P. Plus there would have to be some kind of incentive for a healthy person to go see the sick person in the first place. That would make costs rise at least some even though the person may go and see a doctor less.
19. "Other initiatives ensure that the elderly get counseling about end-of-life issues. Although demagogued as a "death panel," a program in Wisconsin to get patients to talk to their doctors about how they want to deal with death was actually a resounding success. A study by the Archives of Internal Medicine shows that such conversations between doctors and patients can decrease costs by about 35 percent—while improving the quality of life at the end."