Viewpoints: Medicare's lessons for the health law; Krauthammer says Obama shouldn't try to write his own laws

Published on August 17, 2013 at 6:46 AM · 1 Comment

Politico: How To Destroy Obamacare From Within
As a Sept. 30 budget deadline approaches, many in the Republican Party are pushing to repeal the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. The law's most radical opponents are even threatening to shut down the government by refusing to pass a continuing resolution, which would fund existing government programs at current or slightly adjusted levels. The political flaws of this strategy have been debated endlessly inside the GOP. But there is another important consideration: This doesn't have to be Republicans' "last stand." Obamacare doesn't have to be rolled back from without; it can be replaced from within. And Medicare, perhaps surprisingly, shows the way (Yevgeniy Feyman, 8/16).

The Washington Post: Can Obama Write His Own Laws?
[N]iceties must not stand in the way of an administration's agenda. Indeed, the very next day, it was revealed that the administration had unilaterally waived Obamacare's cap on a patient's annual out-of-pocket expenses -; a one-year exemption for selected health insurers that is nowhere permitted in the law. It was simply decreed by an obscure Labor Department regulation. Which followed a presidentially directed 70-plus percent subsidy for the insurance premiums paid by congressmen and their personal staffs -; under a law that denies subsidies for anyone that well-off. Which came just a month after the administration's equally lawless suspension of one of the cornerstones of Obamacare: the employer mandate. Which followed hundreds of Obama­care waivers granted by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to selected businesses, unions and other well-lobbied, very special interests (Charles Krauthammer, 8/15).

Bloomberg: Will Obamacare Save Taxpayer Money? That's Classified
Even as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act pushes to get health insurance for millions more Americans, the law is meant to work just as hard at bringing down the cost of Medicare. On this front, a principal goal has been to move the system away from fee-for-service payments, removing the incentive to provide unnecessary care. ... So it was discouraging to learn last month that a nationwide test of accountable care organizations - - a promising new payment system in which doctors and hospitals coordinate their efforts and share in the savings that may result -- didn't do so well in its first year. ... But now comes further reason to worry: The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has missed the reporting deadlines, some of them mandated by Congress, for at least nine other payment-reform experiments -- and, in many cases, won't even say how late the agency is. Nor will CMS say when the data will be revealed (8/15).

The New York Times: Economix: Controlling Health Care Spending, Revisited
A hotly debated question among health policy wonks is whether the decline in the year-to-year growth in health spending in the United States, which started in 2002, will leave that growth rate at a permanently lower level (Uwe E. Reinhardt, 8/16).

The New York Times: Economix: Having More Doctors Might Reduce Health Spending. Or Maybe Increase It.
Would increasing the supply of doctors lead to lower health costs? This question came up repeatedly in my reporting for Monday's article about barriers to entry for foreign-trained physicians. It seems as if there should be a pretty straightforward answer, based on the usual laws of supply and demand: If you artificially limit the supply of doctors, that should push up the prices of the services they provide. So if you suddenly increase the supply of doctors, that should lower health care costs (Catherine Rampell, 8/15).

Fox News: A Look At ObamaCare's Significant, Widespread And Very Real Problems
ObamaCare is poised to "destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class." And that's the president's supporters talking. The dire warning came last month in a letter from three of the nation's most influential union bosses to Democratic leaders in Congress (Edmund F. Haislmaier, 8/15).  

Toledo Blade: Stop Stalling On Medicaid
The federal government would pay almost all of the cost of Medicaid expansion. But GOP lawmakers remain willing to deny their constituents access to health care to satisfy the extremist Tea Party ideology, which manifests itself in knee-jerk opposition to Obamacare. Governor Kasich, balancing conservatism with pragmatism, said at a recent rally that the issue is helping real people, not swearing allegiance to political abstractions. But he is in the minority in his own party. ... So lawmakers refuse to interrupt the vacation they haven't earned to deal with the most important issue before the state right now. They are leaving $13 billion in federal aid on the table. Instead, the state will spend more money to preserve the indefensible status quo (8/15).  

Los Angeles Times: CVS Thinks $50 Is Enough Reward For Giving Up Healthcare Privacy
Since February, CVS Caremark has been pushing its pharmacists to enroll customers in a prescription-drug rewards program. The benefit to customers is the opportunity to earn up to $50 a year in store credits that can be used to buy shampoo, toothpaste or other products. The benefit to CVS is persuading pharmacy customers, through questionable means, to give up federal privacy safeguards for their medical information and permitting the company to share people's drug purchases with others (David Lazarus, 8/15). 

Read in | English | Español | Français | Deutsch | Português | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 简体中文 | 繁體中文 | Nederlands | Русский | Svenska | Polski
  1. Ettore Greco Ettore Greco United States says:

    Any concept to be universally valid would have to pass the test in any circumstance, including a paradox.

    Without “Yes, but” or “No, but”, the answer should always be the same in all cases.

    The question in regard: is private property a human right?

    For example, what if all spaces above our head were privatized (as it is for airways which are owned by private airlines) and the owners started to charge a fee to all those who want to look up?

    Would it be a crime if anybody were not paying for the refusal to only look down?

    Privatized potable water could also make us think of some paradox.

    For example, suppose a population were dying from thirst and took over the water supplies of a private company. If these people drank all the water and left without paying, was a crime being committed?

    Or if a new plague were to spread all over should all people go to hospitals and get treatment or is that only for some chosen people?

    It depends on whom you ask the answer comes straight from their Cultures.

    Only difference between Christians and Jews in one word is Equality.

    But, confusion reigns sovereign in USA and UK where Christianity lives under the gun of the Jewish Culture and in a big cauldron of hypocrisy.

    Those Christians who do not believe in the basic Human rights are no different than the Jews in their Belief.

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News-Medical.Net.
Post a new comment